![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
So 9 primaries have been held, and 48 remain, right? (normally 47 but the Missouri one doesn't count). The page is a little jumbled at the moment so its a little unclear! 134.126.151.207 ( talk) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the popular vote in the infox in the top right corner doesn't match up with the table further down. For some reason, I can't edit it. Could someone check it for me? EEL123 ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
For the map, let's match the colors of the candidates' ties: Romney - blue, Gingrich - yellow, Santorum - red. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Paul? His tie is a similar color to Santorum's.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the colors! It's amazing to be able to catch all the information so quickly. I am really not qualified to change the colors myself because I can't use the color-coding programs. I'm sure I'd miscode all the data since I can't see it in the first place. So I have to rely on charity.
Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If forgot: NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind. FYI. I'm so grateful. I study this stuff so I often provide too much data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What people need to understand about the colorblind is that they have very good color vision. The colorblind are capable of reading highly color-coded maps. However, the colorblind are at a major disadvantage in almost every scientific field because no effort is made to code diagrams in a way that they can access the information. There are no colorblind friendly text books. There are no colorblind friendly electoral maps in the world. Software for the colorblind is inadequate. The only way that the colorblind can access this information is to ask for detailed descriptions of the patterns from normals.
It would be great to be able to see this information and be able to comment on it and have an opinion. If the colors of the maps are not changed,I cannot access the information. If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The original color scheme of purple, green, yellow, orange was fine. What is going on? S51438 ( talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A consensus about using only secured delegates in the infobox with the source DemConWatch have been reached some time ago.
But what about the result section? Should we have a projected delegate count row together with the secured delegates?
And if we should what source should be used?. It seems that NBC, CNN and AP have very different ideas about what will the already elected state delegates will do at the state conventions in the future.
For now I have put in a projected delegate count line in the resulttable using the DemConWatch's projected count. But I dont know where they get it from.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the source. So now it is DemConWatch for the Secured delegate count, Green Papers for the Projected delegate count and RealClearPolitic for the Populare vote. All in the result table. But that is just for now. I dont think we have reached concensus yet in the matter: Should we have a Projected delegate count row in the Result Table. It is one for (Metallurgist) and one against (Simon12) right now. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is inaccurate. Its not updated to reflect current vote and delegate totals.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.224.141 ( talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
By now it is pretty sure that there will not be a presumptive nominee next wednesday. The race will go on, and so will the lenght of this article.....
Right now the
2011 section is very large, also to large for an article about the whole primary from start to convention, if we should be looking into th future for a second. But it would be sad if this good section simply would slowly be shorter and shorter, loosing good information. So I propose:
If this suggestion carries I can figure out to write a small resume of the current 2011 section to keep in this article. But I didnt really follow the debate and race in 2011, so the new perfect article is left to someone else. I would be happy to start it though. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum has now secured more bound delegates than Ron Paul, has won more states, and by far exceeds Paul's tally in the popular vote. The order in the resultbox should be updated accordingly, however I'm not sure how to correct it. 29 February 2012 9:28 PM MST
^Those aren't bound delegates. 4 March 2012 5:25PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.52.235 ( talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of things are not bound, dedicated, and tied down; not just Washington state. But, it indicates a direction. Even after Super Tuesday, it is just an indication. Some states (delegates) may not make their final decision until they are at hotels at the convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For instance, Santorum has more delegates than that. http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-comments-overshadow-gop-contest-220205487.html This article isn't about it, but it cites that Romney now has 203 delegates, Santorum has 92, Gingrich has 33, and Paul has 25. The article section needs updating badly. J390 ( talk) 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear J390: I'm not sure where you are looking; I do a search in the Article for 'delegate' and find two (under the pictures at the top). You will be happy to know the delegate count is current with : Romney(404); Santorum(167); Gingrich(106); Paul(66). And the update was put in when our sources put the numbers up. Here is a cut/paste from just under the pictures of the Article (on our methodology) >> "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. The counts here include only bound delegates and superdelegates who have committed to a candidate.[2] For various media delegate projections, see Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries." Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This article was beginning to be a bit messy. And with supertuesday coming up and not much change of the race ending there I thought it may be time to implement some changes discussed before on this page and generally shorten the article, migrating information to the subarticles. So I have:
I have tried to cut out double information throughout the article, mostly in the process and schedule section. I have not checked the references, if they can still be retrived. But almost half of the references have migrated with the 2011 section.
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Idaho is listed by Jack Bornholm as "winner-take-all", he says for simplicity sake. The more accurate representation should be "Proportionald", since we have a "d" superscript footnote for just such a case where it's only winner-take-all if the winner gets over 50% of the vote. Just because Romney did in fact get 61% of the vote does not mean that we should call Idaho strictly "winner-take-all", since it isn't. BGManofID ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Green Papers: "Note: Due to Article VI, Section 5 of the Rules of the Idaho Republican Party pertaining to Apportionment and Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention, once certified, Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho’s 32 delegates." They are not going to change. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The article lists how the totals are calculated per state, but doesn't say how many total there are, or why (per the news) 1144 is the magic number to win... Hires an editor ( talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
To me, the Green Papers seem the most authoritative, descriptive, detailed, and up-to-date (quickly). I've added an External Link after searching for the best latest results on Kansas. [1] lists chronological events. It's good, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) PS: They get CNN updates.
Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there:
Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind." Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In the table it says Winner Takes All for California. I've read that each congressional district (of 53) has 3 delegates. Within each CD it's winner take all, but not statewide. Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CA-R Quote:
Hordaland ( talk) 07:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney is announced to have won Guam unanimously http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/09/romney-wins-gop-caucus-in-us-territory-guam/ , but I'm not experienced enough to edit the maps or tables to reflect this. Also, Alaska's county divisions are missing from the map. 109.10.56.71 ( talk) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The box says that Romney has won 16 states. I think you're counting Guam and the Northern Marinas, which are territories and not states. I'm not sure how to edit this, but can someone change it? 69.141.198.81 ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there will never be county-by-county results of the ND Republican Caucus because North Dakota is the only state in the union that does not require Voter Registration. This information is provided by http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/vote-history.html and from Wikipedia's own Voter Registration article. I would suggest that the map be updated with the county lines removed and the state colored in for the only result we're sure of. Then perhaps a small little footnote below explaining why. (I do not know how to update the map)
Otherwise we're left at the end of this primary with a colorful map and North Dakota looking like a scene from Pleasantville. SargeAbernathy ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:
Jd2718 ( talk) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The only columns that readers would want to sort have to do with delegate count, now explained just above the Table. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In the California section above this comment was posted:
I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox [
[3]]. One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think. My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We used to have a section after the now last section, "Super Tuesday". I don't think "Super Tuesday" should be the last section. Didn't we used to have a section reflecting important next elections? People can see the schedule in the Table(s), but the article does not end properly with the results of Super Tuesday. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We need to devise a way to reflect this. My understanding is Paul won the popular vote in Guam 29-26% vs romney, but romney has convinced the 6 uncommitted delegates to join him. I'd suggest that the map reflect a winning of Ron Paul with an asterisks showing that the uncommitted candidates go to Romney as they can change their mind.
Now I am uncertain because it seems that these small places are changing the vote talleys.
Any how it Seems that Romney did not win the popular vote in virgin islands and Paul was the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 ( talk) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to be sounding a bit nit-picky, but is it not odd that out of the 4 pictures used to represent the candidates, one of them (Mitt Rommey) is an official picture from "Mitt Rommey Media", whilst the other three do not come from official sources, but from a semi-professional source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 ( talk) 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be good to have a few line telling the story behind the numbers. Where did the candidate campaign most before supertuesday? What happened with Santorums filing delegate slates in Ohio (the 4 uncommitted delegates he "won"), What did the campaign do after supertuesday and what was the whole Virgin Island thing about?
If anyone could write a few lines to make the whole story, not just numbers it would be great. And if you find one or two nice references that would be fantastic. Thank you to all the hardworking editors that contribute to this page
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, these rules will apply on Sunday 18 March 2012: "20 of 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contenders based on the island-wide vote. If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally. (The threshold is apparently 15%. Rounding rules are not known.). Delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot and are bound for the 1st ballot at the national convention. In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Puerto Rico's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position." [5] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):
Someone removed my improvement. Let's talk. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
* My main point is that we need to advertise at the top that you can drill down to WP state 2012 races.
For each state, click on the 'Contest type' to go to its Wikipedia page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates.
To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.
The List gives: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) .!. Let's not archive it. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and teaching me — I learn something every day. Another idea from WP guidelines, "Be Bold .!." —— Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) —— PS: I can't think of anywhere else to put this LIST, can you?
One thing that the List had (previously here on TALK) was correctly listing Northern Mariana Islands voting after Utah. It is missing in the Article table. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Another newspaper with nothing after March 10th, and you should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with traditional warrior dance group members at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) PS: The five provinces are mentioned.
It seems to be a bit different opinion on who won the territory of Virgin Island. CNN, that normally jumps to the results to be first, are still processing. GP have uncommitted as winner with Paul second and Romney third, the same have DemConWatch ( http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5207/romney-did-not-win-usvi-ron-paul-did-romney-was-3rd). The New York Times have Romney as the winner, an he is if you count the votes his delegates recieved (one uncommitted switch to Romney). All 3 sources agrees in one thing: Paul didn't win the Virgin Islands - Sorry all Paul fans, nothing personal. But until there is more light on the situation and either the sources agree or we have a consesensus about what to do I am removing Virgin Islands from the winner colums. It is not very important since the delegatecount is hard and all agrees on that. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Add Virgin Isands to Ron Paul first place victories in the table on the page. 99.233.134.148 ( talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul didn't win anythiung. Unlike other caucuses, there was no candidate preference straw poll. It is an inacurate statement to say that ANYONE won the "popular vote" when not one single vote was cast for Ron Paul or Mitt Romey. The only reason why Ron Paul's delegates got more votes is because he had 6 and Romney had 3. Obviously many of Romney's supporters (who voted his 3 delegates as the top 3) picked three uncommitted delegates as their top choice. Had Romney had even one more delegate, he would have had delegates with more combined votes. However, that would still not be a"popular vote" victory, since again, at no point did any voter at that caucus write down Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, or put a check next to either of their names. Wikipeia is about accuracy, and talkig about a popular vote that nevr took place is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 ( talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This qoute may be of interest (from the Virgin Islands Republican party (vigop.com)):
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
384 total cast:
It looks they refer these results as results of "popular vote". Why would they otherwise present these numbers? It is also important to see the order. PS: To be clear. I am Czech citizen, not somebody who vote in U.S. elections. -- Dezidor ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that VI only has 9 delegates, and thus it is easy to ask them who they support. Meanwhile in Iowa and Nevada, there are thousands of county and—later—district delegates, so they cant be asked. Ron Pauls campaign asserts that he won the delegates in both states, despite losing both popular votes. And news Ive seen appears to indicate that they may be correct in their assertions! So thats why the media is reporting Ron Paul winning the VI popular vote, while Romney won the delegates. Its easy to determine the delegate total in VI, while it is not easy to determine that in bigger caucuses. Therefore, since the map is based on the popular vote, we should award VI to Paul (uncommitted makes no sense really). Perhaps we will have a second map, which shows what the delegations were, but thats kind of irrelevant because if this is brokered, then after the first round, they will switch.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
A valid precedence came up on the result articles talkpage. I think it would be helpfull in our discussion. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC):
I am glad to see that Paul is marked as the winner because of popular vote totals. If Romney were marked as the winner because of delegates, we would then have to consider that all states in which delegates have not truly been selected yet as ties. — Torchiest talk edits 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should continue coloring states/territories based on who won the popular vote or preference poll. But for caucuses where no preference poll was held, like the Virgin Islands, we should color based on who won the most delegates. You can't take the delegate vote and say that's the presidential preference vote. Only three delegates that were running were pledged to Mitt Romney, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates, especially the uncommitted delegate that pledged to Romney after the vote. If you REALLY want to decide the winner based on the delegate vote, then Uncommitted won, not Ron Paul. -- Noname2 ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
May I say it is ridiculous to use so much time on so few votes. In total, 384 persons (according to GP) voted in the VI caucus. For all those that are having a small edit-war in the starting paragrafs on this article: Do you really think that the Virgin Islands are going to survive in the opening paragrafs at all? In May no one will care. If you want to use time on something else than just having a bit of political fun editing a few lines and the letting others erase them you could write the proper story in the mid-March section - Where it actually would have a change of surviving beyond the next 10 primaries. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE: "Article XIII Sec.1. states, "The method of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be determined by the Territorial Committee." Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands, not Mitt Romney as it says in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 ( talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For now, let Ron Paul (indicated in yellow on the map) keep Virgin Islands. Others won't mind. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Period. The media has consistently gone by popular vote, NOT "delegates." The general public does NOT understand/care about "delegates" when it comes to win/lose. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rick-santorum-ron-paul-iowa-delegates_n_1347743.html where there is insider speculation that RICK SANTORUM or RON PAUL will get a plurality/majority of the delegates in Iowa, for example. Even though the AP count gives Santorum 13 delegates and Romney 12, that won't end up being the exact numbers, and no one in the general public cares, because Santorum won the popular vote and thus won Iowa.
Example: The Michigan Republican Party voted to break a delegate tie and awarded 16 delegates to Mitt Romney and 14 to Rick Santorum. Before that, the delegates were split DEAD EVEN, 15-15. Even Romney supporters in Michigan said the change in delegates was unfair to Santorum, but delegates are decided SEPARATELY from a straw poll or popular vote. ALL media outlets declared Romney the winner in Michigan although in delegates it was a TIE until the GOP switched things up.
The same logic applies for the Virgin Islands. Ron Paul garnered the most VOTES, whether through committed delegates or directly to the candidate, it doesn't matter. The people that voted in their preference chose Ron Paul's name, OR a person directly representing Ron Paul which is in essense the same thing. In Alabama, voters choose their presidential candidate THEN choose delegates representing that candidate. The V.I. is just a reverse of Alabama. People choose delegates representing their candidate to "vote" for their candidate. If you're voting for official delegates for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's delegates get the plurality of the votes, Ron Paul wins because that is considered the "popular vote."
Also, Time magazine, the Washington Times, Yahoo, WHNT-TV, the Huffington Post, and various other media outlets are all reporting a Ron Paul win. And the Times is a neoconservative newspaper, definitely not pro-Ron Paul at all. You can't have it both ways; you can't say Romney wins V.I. because he won the delegates unless you're gonna wait until delegates in states where you've declared Romney the winner are actually decided at state conventions. Romney may or may not end up winning the delegates in those states. Let's use ONE STANDARD here, and that's the popular vote. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiingff ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
WP editors/readers who think there was media bias in reporting Ron Paul's popular vote win will be interested to know there is a Wikipedia page on Media Bias. FYI, I have reference our TALK discussion in their talk section: Talk:Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Media_bias_claimed_in_the_Virgin_Island:_.28Ron_Paul_win.3F.29 Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The AP projections have been dodgy from the start. Now, the Iowa Republican Party is saying that they are an absolute joke: "they don't know what they're talking about". [16] Further, DemConWatch has stated that AP is unreliable regarding superdelegates. [17] I propose that we dump all AP delegate projections per WP:RS. Its one thing to be unbiased and use all sources. Its another thing to use completely unreliable sources without any legitimate basis.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The last column in the table at Republican_primary#Contests is "Uncom." - what exactly does that stand for? I presume "Uncommitted", but what does that mean? Immediately above the table it says there are "3 uncommitted delegates", yet this column shows 25 for Iowa alone (33 more for Colorado, etc.).
I think we need a better description of what that means and how many there are. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been problems with Mizabot for a long time now. Would it be an idea to switch to ClueBot III? I am not sure how to do it and still keep the archive pages in the right order. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois". . . [(yes, we can wait till it is finalized, but here is pre-notice.)]
“Romney overwhelmingly wins Puerto Rico's primary, while he and rival Santorum face crucial days ahead as each strives to collect delegates needed to become the inevitable GOP presidential candidate.”
[18] FYI,
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a good reference and has the delegate count (as does the Green Papers) for Romney and Santorum in Illinois, [19] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This reference has great graphics and stats! You should take a look. Statistics include a state-by-state graphic and annotation of total delegates for the four hopefuls. It looks to me like Romney is half way to having the requisite 1,144 delegates (needed to win the Republican nomination); and that he also has half of the delegates to this point, (pledged+unpledgedRNC): Romney(562), Santorum(249), Gingrich(137), Paul(69). So that is 562 delegates for Romney, and 455 for "Not Romney", (as some people say). PS: If there is a 'comma-fault', is there also a 'semicolon-fault' ? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
From time to time, the NRC via GOP.com will put out their official delegate count, to date. Here is the latest I can find (for March 9th) [20] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now all the territories are in the resultsection in 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. But this is a bit of fictionally writing. According to the Samoa caucus Wikipedia article there was no formal vote taken, so there can be no popular winner. Who won Virgin Islands? That is best not discussed further. Guam didnt have a 2nd or 3rd since all elected delegates supports Romney. And in no of the small territories was there a strawpoll of any kind. So no one really won the populare vote. May I suggest that we either
I personally vote for the only keeping PR. Like Real Clear Politicis does it ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html] Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I understand about Louisiana: Louisiana allocates 20 delegates in their March 24 primary election and 18 delegates with April 28 district caucuses; they also have 8 unbound delegates for a total of 46 delegates. [21] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Since we are listing the "states won" by popular vote, Missouri should be counted for Santorum. The primary was non-binding, but so were straw polls in the caucus states. And the Missouri caucuses do not have a straw poll, so the only popular vote was the February primary. -- 89.27.36.41 ( talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree - Unless we start showing half-blank with slashed lines for Maine or any of the other states where the delegate winner won't be known until the state convention then it makes no sense for Missouri either. Santorum was the definite winner there. - Helvetica ( talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I also noticed that Missouri isn't shown at all on the county results page. Again, I fail to understand the logic here...Most of the caucus states have a straw poll (the results of which are released the same day) and a more long and drawn out delegate selection process. The only difference with Missouri is that the staw-poll part is a separate event from the caucus and the caucus itself has no straw-poll of its own. So if we're going with the straw-poll/popular result numbers for every other state then we shouldn't treat Missouri any different simply because their straw poll was on a different day than the start of the caucus process. - Helvetica ( talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of editing the county results map, although I'm not sure if I've broken upload rules or not. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and successfully replaced the file on the results page but I think I accidentally removed the revision history. This is the file that I made, if there are any changes anyone thinks should be made to it I'm up for suggestions. Also, I'm unable to edit it on the main primary page as since I'm a new user and the article is semi protected there are restrictions, but it is changed on the results page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png -- RoteDelano ( talk) 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried changing it last night but it appears to be semiprotected. I was able to change it on the results page but then someone reverted it without stating why. -- RoteDelano ( talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I can now edit the PNG and SVG maps, so if the other editors dont get to it first, just let me know on my talk page. Here is the editor I use for SVG, which anyone can do online. Its pretty easy to use. On that note, the nationwide and Missouri maps are now updated based on the caucus results I was able to dig up. =D -- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
To keep the map discussion in one place, lets have it on the county maps talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png#Missouri Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Louisiana be striped since it still has a caucus that decides over half their delegates? 205.217.238.62 ( talk) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The state map are used in different articles. It would be good to have discussions about this map only at one place - its own talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
How can the page show ron paul with so few delegates? several soruces like this one http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ron-paul-supporters-dominate-gop-caucuses-in-st-louis-jackson/article_4c7977d4-75e0-11e1-858e-001a4bcf6878.html say "Paul's backers won all 36 delegates" in 1 of several caucuses (remember this is just 1)
I am assuming a few select group of people have "made up" rules on what delegates should be counted(i.e only the ones from winner take all states)
p.s i am not a US citizen i live in england, so excuse me if i made some mistake about US politics-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. Why is the word fraud not mentioned once in this article? Its been noted in the media and even with video proof that there was fraud. like what happened in maine, missouri?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- citation needed Hot Stop U T C 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
see 2 videos http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 : why does america want to be more like north korea, i thought it was the land of the free, thats why they keep invading countries to give them freedom. joke, but this is more evidence of fraud, yet this article does not mention the word "fraud" or "vote rigging" even once !-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The Conservative Party of England just had a scandale (again again), it is unfortunatly but it does not mean that Cameron is now the supreme dictator of UK, England is not pointing at Denmark with its nuclear missiles, they are not kidnapping danish citizens. Miscon you stated that you are from England, have you found yourself without food this week, without the right to say what you want, without the possibility to use the internet because of the Conservative Party Scandale? Because what happens in England must be the same as England is just like North Korea now - Right? Dont belittle the suffering of the korean people by making such stupid remarks. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Qoute from
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles."
Here's the thing I haven't understood of Ron Paul supporters: you say 1) that the Paul campaign's master plan to harvest delegates from caucus states is working like a charm, and that Paul actually has the second most delegates of the candidates, but you also say 2) that there is a massive voter fraud operation to disenfranchise Paul voters in the caucus states to deny them delegates. How do you not see the contradiction here? Both claims can't be true, since they pretty much cancel each other out. -- 89.27.36.41 ( talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business insider, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news. video evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. which of these are acceptable to use in this article to bring up fraud/vote rigging e.t.c-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now when you click on a candidates column, it sorts by the first digit only, which is something you might expect from an 80s computer, not a 2012 top 5 web site. So, states where a candidate won 6 delegates comes up before ones where he won 55. 74.67.106.207 ( talk) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, 74 are right. There is a real problem with the table. It does not sort correctly, because it does not conform to the limits of the sortable table. It can be fixed, but there is a price to pay. If a sortable table should sort numbers nothing else must be in that colum. So the RNC brackets have to go. If it should sort the dates right only one date can appear in the colum. But since it is sorted this way from the start the best thing will be to make that colum unsortable. Even though it will mean changes in the table, 74 is right. Why have a sortable table when it cant sort prober. I will work on it. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is working right now, but it was NOT working right when I wrote this. I did read the table and DID click the table twice. But if Mr Shipp would have read MY comment, he would have realized that the issue had nothing to do with clicking on the triangle twice. I was not saying it was sorting least to most. I was saying that it was sorting by the first digit. It sorted from highest to lowest, but it saw 7 delegates as more than 43 delegates because 7 is more than 3. 74.67.106.207 ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The red bar below each candidate's photograph used to give a visual representation of the percentage of the delegates that each candidate has secured. Now it is just a red bar. Any way to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Some more sources on that. There's quite a few actually for a variety of different states in the primary, so it should probably get its own section in the article.
I think this is enough to start with. Silver seren C 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there really 3,488 delegates at stake in the March primaries, as half the delegates is the 1,144 needed to win? Perhaps this was just a typo? Captain Gamma ( talk) 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It currently says Tuesday is April 3rd. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake that someone should fix. 74.90.121.53 ( talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My apologies all I was tired and didn't realize that google gave me a 2011 calendar. 74.90.121.53 ( talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point in including a Twitter based poll here or in a related page? e.g. that compares the relative number of followers or mentions of candidates? e.g. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=41 The split of followers for Romney v Santorum 69/31 correlates with their delegate count (568 v 273). But the split including Gingrich and Paul looks very strange with Newt winning the follower battle. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=154 Is there value to this data in any of the articles? Obviously, it is verifiable fact (since all data is accessible at Twitter.com) but is it neutral or relevant? Uptodateinfo ( talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Twitter is on the rise and I'm ramping up myself. Jack's point is well-spoken: put it in the 'Straw Poll' article. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You might as what have happened to this nice and big resultsection, now we are left with just the small one in the start? The answer is that the results have migrated to the resultarticle. Both to streamline this article but also to bring more attention to the result article. this very good article have all the results, want the numbers then go to the resultpage, they have all the numbers. I hope that fine article will keep getting improved as the certified elected real human alive delegates start appearing. So the 2012 result article one day will be the article with all the delegate and populare count from the whole race. Not just the CNN and Fox projections but the real certified results. If anyone dont like this move they are of course welcome to revert it an we can have a discussion and a consensus about it. This is just my opinion. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor put this on the top of the article. I undid his edit, but I still think it is funny, so I will put it here for other editors to have a laugh
In Calvinball there is only one rule - You cannot use the same rule twice! - I wonder if some Republican state committee members reads Calvin and Hobbes
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse my french, but the editing of this article is just frantic. One day it looks totally different from the previous day. Its no need to remove useful info and media unless its got absolutely no relevance or if its unsourced. Jørgen88 ( talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The title itself is pretty much an attack using the word fucked up instead of a more polit term, but anyway. I dont know about any info that have been removed, but I might be wrong. The words have been copyedited and rewritten to get a better english (what I am thankfull happens to most my edits) and since it is an ongoing process new info are been added and info stated twice in the same section is being compressed. The only info that have been removes I know of is in the primary schedule, and that happened to make the sortable table working, there are limits to how much info there can be in each colum in a sortable table. Personally I also migrated the results to the result article (there is more than one excellent article on this primary) but I see that it is back, No one have commented though in the explanation I have stated in the section just above. Do you have any specific examples of info being removed? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now there is pictures of all 12 major candidates in this race. But it would be nice to have some photos from an actual caucus, from primary voting, from campaign events or from ???
As events unfold the article is going to be a little longer and it could be nice to have such a photo or maybe even two in the later sections. So if anyone have the oppertunity then bring your camera.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The delegate counts in the infobox and later in the article don't match up. Is it supposed to be this way for some reason, or does one of the areas need to be updated? Alphius ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I would myself like to suggest that the projected count in Results#Delegate count be changed from GP to CNN. It is nothing more than a guess anyway and CNN is a highly known source to the general public. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In the past, there has been a lot of TALK about this excellent and important Article. For a few days now there has been no discussion, no edit in TALK. Does this mean we have reached a point to be nominated for award(s)? How now can the Article be improved even more, one asks not rhetorically(?) Thanks to ourselves
for all the excellent work. The Article here is significant, important, and of interest in the United States of America and internationally. And, especially to Jack, Thanks Again,
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
09:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We have made a mistake with North Dakota in the Super Tuesday section. The caucuses that day actually didnt allocated delegates and all the delegates from North Dakota is unbound. Well not a big mistake and not worth mentioning here - Unless.....
The state convention was this weekend and it seems that the state that went to Santorum on Supertuesday actually are going with a majority of the delegates to Romney. That will be the first time this cycle that an unallocating state goes to someone other than the winner of the nonbinding strawpoll. I have tried to find reliable sources reporting, but a google search is full of youtube videos and blogs from Paul supporters screaming fraud. Maybe the convention was taken over by Romney supporters or maybe something else happened. But it is worth keeping an eye on.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have improved the old schedule table with info on the election of all the delegates, not only the unallocated ones. Now each delegation only have one row and then it is possible to sort them according to the 3 important dates for each delegation (see Legend). There was also room for info on the type of caucuses, something that we havent had before. I think that the table is a long way to become more than just a schedule that are removed after the primary have ended. Now it is the table on almost all info on the allocation and election of delegates. Have a look. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
FLASH: just breaking :: . . . Santorum suspends his campaign. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack, Congratulations on your high achievement, Golden Wiki Award, "You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month!" This article should be up for awards also. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that this is a really fine article. Congratulations to all for terrific effort and wonderful results. Poihths ( talk) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If you check under 'History' for this Article, and choose 'Extended tools' you can find that:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has been viewed 445,653 times in the last 30 days.
Yes, search engines come to Wikipedia often.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Concerning "something about the money", this is interesting: List_of_richest_American_politicians which you find as a "See also" under Mitt Romney, worth $200million to $250million. The way I look at it, money is not the main factor in the 2012 presidential election, since the likely-voters of USA will seek truth and value. Yes, super-PACs will be a big factor due to the CFR act and the Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment, free speech. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack and all 200 'watchers', you may be interested to know that I have joined the discussion over at the US campaign finance reform page (McCain-Feingold of late) and you can see the TALK section I started (after linking 'See also' back to here.) ::
Talk:Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_U.S._CFR_on_2012_presidential_.26_congressional_elections
Just like we don't put everything here, we can direct over to this article.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
With Santorum out on april 10 the sections have to be rewritten. Now there will not be a separate April 24 section and the many conventions coming up are no longer so important. I suggest that we end the April and March section with Santorum dropping out (and Gingrich if he does the same tomorrow). We could call it March or ????. And the rest of the results from the primaries could be called later states. I dont think we need the results from the conventions electing unallocated delegates at all. The are already in the result article. Unless the Paul campaign are going to make noise about the North Dakota convention it doesnt really fit in anymore either. Maybe it can be put in the north dakota article. But just for this once I am going to park the lines here to move or put back into the article, have patience:
What are ideas concerning the layout in the rest (future) part of the timeline section? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Gingrich will have no reason to drop out now that Santorum has. Santorum has kicked the door open for him.
Jay72091 (
talk)
02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Could be. And don't discount Ron Paul with some of the Tea Party support.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just modified our paragraph for April results (Santorum suspending his campaigning). Here is how it reads: Four days later, on April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum ‘suspended’ his campaign.[56] Romney said that Santorum had made a important contribution to the political process and that he will continue to have a major role in the Republican Party.[57] Santorum carried eleven states, six states that allocated delegates and five non-binding caucus states, securing 202 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
There is further discussion of Santorum at Talk:Rick_Santorum_presidential_campaign,_2012#Who_gets_his_delegates ... FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I had some good information under the April pictures of Romney and Santorum. It was at first modified, then added to, and then entirely deleted. Can I suggest the following brief info:
Around April 8, 2012, both Romney and Santorum took a four-day Easter break from campaigning. [2] [3] At that date, the delegate count from WSJ was Romney 661, Santorum 285, Gingrich 136, Ron Paul 51, and Huntsman 1 delegate. [30] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Somebody added a "Projected first Republican National Convention vote" based a single white paper which was released: [31]. I have many qualms about the methodology in this, and the author seems to have a very poor understanding of statistics (e.g. says that having multiple independent sources with error margins "increases" the uncertainty, when it does exactly the opposite). As well as a bunch of very unlikely consequences of Santorum dropping out (Romney loses a third of his support, Ron Paul doesn't lose any, Ron Paul gets half of Santorum's voters, some of gingrich's, Romney gets none). The net result is the projection that Ron Paul will pick up 550 of the remaining delegates, but Romney will only get 310. Now I don't contribute to wikipedia much, so I don't know the procedures for debating or assessing the validity of external sources, but this does seem very out of line with virtually ever other projection by any credible media source, as well as seeming just generally unlikely to any independent observer.
Additionally, I can't actually find the article anywhere else to verify its source- on the wiki page it says "David MacMillan III University of Northern Alabama", but I can't find the article linked to anywhere else on the internet- it seems to literally just be a pdf hosted on a pdf hosting service with no other information about the author than their name. It could literally just be some random person's vague projections formatted into a pdf and uploaded on the internet. Is that really worthy on it's own row, presented as of comparable accuracy to totals from sources such as the green papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 ( talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Athleek123 ( talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this clearly shows the source is not anywhere near neutral. This is important in this case because the projections can vary wildly depending on the assumptions you make and almost anybody could justify their projections as being plausible whilst making the outcome suit the candidate they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 ( talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bluntly, if you'd read the WP:RS page, you'd know that anything that might be questioned in a WP page must be sourced to a reliable source. Period. Not necessarily unbiased, but it must be from a reliable source. You'll note that any projections are both sourced to a WP:RS and we say where it's sourced from so that readers can estimate potential bias in their eyes. But you MUST have a reliable source. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a move afoot to coalesce behind Romney (and soon). [32] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the Republican nomination will not be secured, formally, until the first vote at the 2012_Republican_National_Convention starting August 27th in Tampa, Florida. When will the 1,144 votes actually be secured? Not till the end of May, not that far away now. Look to Texas to be the 'clincher' and California to be the 'hammer', (my words, original thought/research). Here is the path to securing the nomination delegate votes (with each state, total delegates & cumulative count, if Romney is allocated them all) :: Start with today from our Table(591) +CT(28,619) +DE(17,636) +NY(95,731) +PA(72,803) +RI(19,822) +LA(46,868) +ID(46,914) +NC(55,969) +WV(31,1000) +OR(28,1028) +AR(26,1064) +KY(45,1109) +TX(155,1264) +CA(172,1436). And so you see that Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky can all vote and still not reach the magic number of 1144 (1,144 is half plus one) . . . so if everybody jumps on board with Mitt Romney, he goes over the top with Texas on May 29th and definitely then with California on June 5th. After June 5th, only Nebraska, Montana, and Utah will be voting. So, you see, although Romney is on a roll, so to speak, (Ann too now that she has a Twitter account and secures the Motherhood vote) the requisite number isn't reached until Texas votes. What if Ron Paul takes his home state of Texas? Then CA would be both the 'clincher' and the 'hammer', in my humble (but obvious) view. All of these states vote not only for their presidential choice, but regarding other details such as their state delegation, local Republican arrangements, and state races. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is something to keep in mind (both for rules and for nomenclature).
"NRC Delegate Count ... April 2012 ... Posted by: Sean Spicer, Communications Director [for NRC]"
"Please find below an updated delegate chart. Please keep in mind that these numbers do not reflect any potential delegate disputes and this information may change based on the results that come in after the initial vote that may affect the delegate count."
"The following is based on the information provided to the RNC by each state party which has held a presidential primary, caucus or convention to date where delegates were bound or delegates have publicly endorsed a candidate. It does not include states which do not bind delegates. These numbers reflect the current results of the Congressional Districts and the actual results may not be certified for up to 2 weeks. The current delegate tracking is set out in the chart below:
DELEGATE COUNT AS REPORTED BY STATE PARTIES "
[35]
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
12:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum officially dropped out of the race a few days ago; why is he still featured in the infobox on the right? Only show the 3 CURRENT candidates!
68.174.106.170 (
talk)
02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I obviously agree that Santorum should be included in infobox, but there should be a clear indication that he is out of the running. I have two proposals: his image being in black and white (and the same for Paul and Gingrich when we assume they will eventually leave). Or an alphabetical footnote in the infobox, next to the delegate count: (a) Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10, 2012. Sir Richardson ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sir Richardson, why would "we" assume that Gingrich and Paul will eventually leave? Both have stated numerous times that they are going to stay in the race until the convention. Paul has already won Minnesota and Iowa so I don't see him going anywhere, although Gingrich has been bouncing checks just to get himself on ballots so I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave. Mathias 173.250.193.35 ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
He only suspended and hasnt endorsed. Hes also one of the "final four" and a major competitor. I say keep em all at this point. We can order them by final delegate totals when those are available, or at the convention (unless he releases them prior to the first vote).-- Metallurgist ( talk) 10:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't see Perry or anyone else there, so I assume this lists current candidates, which at this point are two. 67.87.36.182 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have editing rights to this article, but the phrase "five state" should be "five states" in the most recent paragraph.
Thanks.
Done - Thanks for spotting the error.--
JayJasper (
talk)
20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Currently, our article hints it was because of money. I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate in our brilliant article, and it does not have a footnoted external reference.
Here are some additional reasons that could be documented and still be not up to our standards:
It could also be said that Gingrich has no money, but is it appropriate? Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
We used to have a paragraph I would keep up (regarding the next Republican primaries) which I thought readers would appreciate. What happened? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
So 9 primaries have been held, and 48 remain, right? (normally 47 but the Missouri one doesn't count). The page is a little jumbled at the moment so its a little unclear! 134.126.151.207 ( talk) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the popular vote in the infox in the top right corner doesn't match up with the table further down. For some reason, I can't edit it. Could someone check it for me? EEL123 ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
For the map, let's match the colors of the candidates' ties: Romney - blue, Gingrich - yellow, Santorum - red. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Paul? His tie is a similar color to Santorum's.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the colors! It's amazing to be able to catch all the information so quickly. I am really not qualified to change the colors myself because I can't use the color-coding programs. I'm sure I'd miscode all the data since I can't see it in the first place. So I have to rely on charity.
Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If forgot: NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind. FYI. I'm so grateful. I study this stuff so I often provide too much data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What people need to understand about the colorblind is that they have very good color vision. The colorblind are capable of reading highly color-coded maps. However, the colorblind are at a major disadvantage in almost every scientific field because no effort is made to code diagrams in a way that they can access the information. There are no colorblind friendly text books. There are no colorblind friendly electoral maps in the world. Software for the colorblind is inadequate. The only way that the colorblind can access this information is to ask for detailed descriptions of the patterns from normals.
It would be great to be able to see this information and be able to comment on it and have an opinion. If the colors of the maps are not changed,I cannot access the information. If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 ( talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The original color scheme of purple, green, yellow, orange was fine. What is going on? S51438 ( talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A consensus about using only secured delegates in the infobox with the source DemConWatch have been reached some time ago.
But what about the result section? Should we have a projected delegate count row together with the secured delegates?
And if we should what source should be used?. It seems that NBC, CNN and AP have very different ideas about what will the already elected state delegates will do at the state conventions in the future.
For now I have put in a projected delegate count line in the resulttable using the DemConWatch's projected count. But I dont know where they get it from.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the source. So now it is DemConWatch for the Secured delegate count, Green Papers for the Projected delegate count and RealClearPolitic for the Populare vote. All in the result table. But that is just for now. I dont think we have reached concensus yet in the matter: Should we have a Projected delegate count row in the Result Table. It is one for (Metallurgist) and one against (Simon12) right now. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is inaccurate. Its not updated to reflect current vote and delegate totals.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.224.141 ( talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
By now it is pretty sure that there will not be a presumptive nominee next wednesday. The race will go on, and so will the lenght of this article.....
Right now the
2011 section is very large, also to large for an article about the whole primary from start to convention, if we should be looking into th future for a second. But it would be sad if this good section simply would slowly be shorter and shorter, loosing good information. So I propose:
If this suggestion carries I can figure out to write a small resume of the current 2011 section to keep in this article. But I didnt really follow the debate and race in 2011, so the new perfect article is left to someone else. I would be happy to start it though. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum has now secured more bound delegates than Ron Paul, has won more states, and by far exceeds Paul's tally in the popular vote. The order in the resultbox should be updated accordingly, however I'm not sure how to correct it. 29 February 2012 9:28 PM MST
^Those aren't bound delegates. 4 March 2012 5:25PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.52.235 ( talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of things are not bound, dedicated, and tied down; not just Washington state. But, it indicates a direction. Even after Super Tuesday, it is just an indication. Some states (delegates) may not make their final decision until they are at hotels at the convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For instance, Santorum has more delegates than that. http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-comments-overshadow-gop-contest-220205487.html This article isn't about it, but it cites that Romney now has 203 delegates, Santorum has 92, Gingrich has 33, and Paul has 25. The article section needs updating badly. J390 ( talk) 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear J390: I'm not sure where you are looking; I do a search in the Article for 'delegate' and find two (under the pictures at the top). You will be happy to know the delegate count is current with : Romney(404); Santorum(167); Gingrich(106); Paul(66). And the update was put in when our sources put the numbers up. Here is a cut/paste from just under the pictures of the Article (on our methodology) >> "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. The counts here include only bound delegates and superdelegates who have committed to a candidate.[2] For various media delegate projections, see Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries." Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This article was beginning to be a bit messy. And with supertuesday coming up and not much change of the race ending there I thought it may be time to implement some changes discussed before on this page and generally shorten the article, migrating information to the subarticles. So I have:
I have tried to cut out double information throughout the article, mostly in the process and schedule section. I have not checked the references, if they can still be retrived. But almost half of the references have migrated with the 2011 section.
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Idaho is listed by Jack Bornholm as "winner-take-all", he says for simplicity sake. The more accurate representation should be "Proportionald", since we have a "d" superscript footnote for just such a case where it's only winner-take-all if the winner gets over 50% of the vote. Just because Romney did in fact get 61% of the vote does not mean that we should call Idaho strictly "winner-take-all", since it isn't. BGManofID ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Green Papers: "Note: Due to Article VI, Section 5 of the Rules of the Idaho Republican Party pertaining to Apportionment and Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention, once certified, Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho’s 32 delegates." They are not going to change. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The article lists how the totals are calculated per state, but doesn't say how many total there are, or why (per the news) 1144 is the magic number to win... Hires an editor ( talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
To me, the Green Papers seem the most authoritative, descriptive, detailed, and up-to-date (quickly). I've added an External Link after searching for the best latest results on Kansas. [1] lists chronological events. It's good, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) PS: They get CNN updates.
Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there:
Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind." Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In the table it says Winner Takes All for California. I've read that each congressional district (of 53) has 3 delegates. Within each CD it's winner take all, but not statewide. Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CA-R Quote:
Hordaland ( talk) 07:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney is announced to have won Guam unanimously http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/09/romney-wins-gop-caucus-in-us-territory-guam/ , but I'm not experienced enough to edit the maps or tables to reflect this. Also, Alaska's county divisions are missing from the map. 109.10.56.71 ( talk) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The box says that Romney has won 16 states. I think you're counting Guam and the Northern Marinas, which are territories and not states. I'm not sure how to edit this, but can someone change it? 69.141.198.81 ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there will never be county-by-county results of the ND Republican Caucus because North Dakota is the only state in the union that does not require Voter Registration. This information is provided by http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/vote-history.html and from Wikipedia's own Voter Registration article. I would suggest that the map be updated with the county lines removed and the state colored in for the only result we're sure of. Then perhaps a small little footnote below explaining why. (I do not know how to update the map)
Otherwise we're left at the end of this primary with a colorful map and North Dakota looking like a scene from Pleasantville. SargeAbernathy ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:
Jd2718 ( talk) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The only columns that readers would want to sort have to do with delegate count, now explained just above the Table. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In the California section above this comment was posted:
I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox [
[3]]. One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think. My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We used to have a section after the now last section, "Super Tuesday". I don't think "Super Tuesday" should be the last section. Didn't we used to have a section reflecting important next elections? People can see the schedule in the Table(s), but the article does not end properly with the results of Super Tuesday. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We need to devise a way to reflect this. My understanding is Paul won the popular vote in Guam 29-26% vs romney, but romney has convinced the 6 uncommitted delegates to join him. I'd suggest that the map reflect a winning of Ron Paul with an asterisks showing that the uncommitted candidates go to Romney as they can change their mind.
Now I am uncertain because it seems that these small places are changing the vote talleys.
Any how it Seems that Romney did not win the popular vote in virgin islands and Paul was the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 ( talk) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to be sounding a bit nit-picky, but is it not odd that out of the 4 pictures used to represent the candidates, one of them (Mitt Rommey) is an official picture from "Mitt Rommey Media", whilst the other three do not come from official sources, but from a semi-professional source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 ( talk) 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be good to have a few line telling the story behind the numbers. Where did the candidate campaign most before supertuesday? What happened with Santorums filing delegate slates in Ohio (the 4 uncommitted delegates he "won"), What did the campaign do after supertuesday and what was the whole Virgin Island thing about?
If anyone could write a few lines to make the whole story, not just numbers it would be great. And if you find one or two nice references that would be fantastic. Thank you to all the hardworking editors that contribute to this page
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, these rules will apply on Sunday 18 March 2012: "20 of 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contenders based on the island-wide vote. If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally. (The threshold is apparently 15%. Rounding rules are not known.). Delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot and are bound for the 1st ballot at the national convention. In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Puerto Rico's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position." [5] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):
Someone removed my improvement. Let's talk. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
* My main point is that we need to advertise at the top that you can drill down to WP state 2012 races.
For each state, click on the 'Contest type' to go to its Wikipedia page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates.
To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.
The List gives: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) .!. Let's not archive it. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and teaching me — I learn something every day. Another idea from WP guidelines, "Be Bold .!." —— Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) —— PS: I can't think of anywhere else to put this LIST, can you?
One thing that the List had (previously here on TALK) was correctly listing Northern Mariana Islands voting after Utah. It is missing in the Article table. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Another newspaper with nothing after March 10th, and you should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with traditional warrior dance group members at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) PS: The five provinces are mentioned.
It seems to be a bit different opinion on who won the territory of Virgin Island. CNN, that normally jumps to the results to be first, are still processing. GP have uncommitted as winner with Paul second and Romney third, the same have DemConWatch ( http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5207/romney-did-not-win-usvi-ron-paul-did-romney-was-3rd). The New York Times have Romney as the winner, an he is if you count the votes his delegates recieved (one uncommitted switch to Romney). All 3 sources agrees in one thing: Paul didn't win the Virgin Islands - Sorry all Paul fans, nothing personal. But until there is more light on the situation and either the sources agree or we have a consesensus about what to do I am removing Virgin Islands from the winner colums. It is not very important since the delegatecount is hard and all agrees on that. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Add Virgin Isands to Ron Paul first place victories in the table on the page. 99.233.134.148 ( talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul didn't win anythiung. Unlike other caucuses, there was no candidate preference straw poll. It is an inacurate statement to say that ANYONE won the "popular vote" when not one single vote was cast for Ron Paul or Mitt Romey. The only reason why Ron Paul's delegates got more votes is because he had 6 and Romney had 3. Obviously many of Romney's supporters (who voted his 3 delegates as the top 3) picked three uncommitted delegates as their top choice. Had Romney had even one more delegate, he would have had delegates with more combined votes. However, that would still not be a"popular vote" victory, since again, at no point did any voter at that caucus write down Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, or put a check next to either of their names. Wikipeia is about accuracy, and talkig about a popular vote that nevr took place is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 ( talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This qoute may be of interest (from the Virgin Islands Republican party (vigop.com)):
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
384 total cast:
It looks they refer these results as results of "popular vote". Why would they otherwise present these numbers? It is also important to see the order. PS: To be clear. I am Czech citizen, not somebody who vote in U.S. elections. -- Dezidor ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that VI only has 9 delegates, and thus it is easy to ask them who they support. Meanwhile in Iowa and Nevada, there are thousands of county and—later—district delegates, so they cant be asked. Ron Pauls campaign asserts that he won the delegates in both states, despite losing both popular votes. And news Ive seen appears to indicate that they may be correct in their assertions! So thats why the media is reporting Ron Paul winning the VI popular vote, while Romney won the delegates. Its easy to determine the delegate total in VI, while it is not easy to determine that in bigger caucuses. Therefore, since the map is based on the popular vote, we should award VI to Paul (uncommitted makes no sense really). Perhaps we will have a second map, which shows what the delegations were, but thats kind of irrelevant because if this is brokered, then after the first round, they will switch.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
A valid precedence came up on the result articles talkpage. I think it would be helpfull in our discussion. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC):
I am glad to see that Paul is marked as the winner because of popular vote totals. If Romney were marked as the winner because of delegates, we would then have to consider that all states in which delegates have not truly been selected yet as ties. — Torchiest talk edits 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should continue coloring states/territories based on who won the popular vote or preference poll. But for caucuses where no preference poll was held, like the Virgin Islands, we should color based on who won the most delegates. You can't take the delegate vote and say that's the presidential preference vote. Only three delegates that were running were pledged to Mitt Romney, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates, especially the uncommitted delegate that pledged to Romney after the vote. If you REALLY want to decide the winner based on the delegate vote, then Uncommitted won, not Ron Paul. -- Noname2 ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
May I say it is ridiculous to use so much time on so few votes. In total, 384 persons (according to GP) voted in the VI caucus. For all those that are having a small edit-war in the starting paragrafs on this article: Do you really think that the Virgin Islands are going to survive in the opening paragrafs at all? In May no one will care. If you want to use time on something else than just having a bit of political fun editing a few lines and the letting others erase them you could write the proper story in the mid-March section - Where it actually would have a change of surviving beyond the next 10 primaries. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE: "Article XIII Sec.1. states, "The method of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be determined by the Territorial Committee." Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands, not Mitt Romney as it says in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 ( talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For now, let Ron Paul (indicated in yellow on the map) keep Virgin Islands. Others won't mind. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Period. The media has consistently gone by popular vote, NOT "delegates." The general public does NOT understand/care about "delegates" when it comes to win/lose. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rick-santorum-ron-paul-iowa-delegates_n_1347743.html where there is insider speculation that RICK SANTORUM or RON PAUL will get a plurality/majority of the delegates in Iowa, for example. Even though the AP count gives Santorum 13 delegates and Romney 12, that won't end up being the exact numbers, and no one in the general public cares, because Santorum won the popular vote and thus won Iowa.
Example: The Michigan Republican Party voted to break a delegate tie and awarded 16 delegates to Mitt Romney and 14 to Rick Santorum. Before that, the delegates were split DEAD EVEN, 15-15. Even Romney supporters in Michigan said the change in delegates was unfair to Santorum, but delegates are decided SEPARATELY from a straw poll or popular vote. ALL media outlets declared Romney the winner in Michigan although in delegates it was a TIE until the GOP switched things up.
The same logic applies for the Virgin Islands. Ron Paul garnered the most VOTES, whether through committed delegates or directly to the candidate, it doesn't matter. The people that voted in their preference chose Ron Paul's name, OR a person directly representing Ron Paul which is in essense the same thing. In Alabama, voters choose their presidential candidate THEN choose delegates representing that candidate. The V.I. is just a reverse of Alabama. People choose delegates representing their candidate to "vote" for their candidate. If you're voting for official delegates for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's delegates get the plurality of the votes, Ron Paul wins because that is considered the "popular vote."
Also, Time magazine, the Washington Times, Yahoo, WHNT-TV, the Huffington Post, and various other media outlets are all reporting a Ron Paul win. And the Times is a neoconservative newspaper, definitely not pro-Ron Paul at all. You can't have it both ways; you can't say Romney wins V.I. because he won the delegates unless you're gonna wait until delegates in states where you've declared Romney the winner are actually decided at state conventions. Romney may or may not end up winning the delegates in those states. Let's use ONE STANDARD here, and that's the popular vote. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiingff ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
WP editors/readers who think there was media bias in reporting Ron Paul's popular vote win will be interested to know there is a Wikipedia page on Media Bias. FYI, I have reference our TALK discussion in their talk section: Talk:Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Media_bias_claimed_in_the_Virgin_Island:_.28Ron_Paul_win.3F.29 Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The AP projections have been dodgy from the start. Now, the Iowa Republican Party is saying that they are an absolute joke: "they don't know what they're talking about". [16] Further, DemConWatch has stated that AP is unreliable regarding superdelegates. [17] I propose that we dump all AP delegate projections per WP:RS. Its one thing to be unbiased and use all sources. Its another thing to use completely unreliable sources without any legitimate basis.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The last column in the table at Republican_primary#Contests is "Uncom." - what exactly does that stand for? I presume "Uncommitted", but what does that mean? Immediately above the table it says there are "3 uncommitted delegates", yet this column shows 25 for Iowa alone (33 more for Colorado, etc.).
I think we need a better description of what that means and how many there are. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been problems with Mizabot for a long time now. Would it be an idea to switch to ClueBot III? I am not sure how to do it and still keep the archive pages in the right order. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois". . . [(yes, we can wait till it is finalized, but here is pre-notice.)]
“Romney overwhelmingly wins Puerto Rico's primary, while he and rival Santorum face crucial days ahead as each strives to collect delegates needed to become the inevitable GOP presidential candidate.”
[18] FYI,
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a good reference and has the delegate count (as does the Green Papers) for Romney and Santorum in Illinois, [19] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This reference has great graphics and stats! You should take a look. Statistics include a state-by-state graphic and annotation of total delegates for the four hopefuls. It looks to me like Romney is half way to having the requisite 1,144 delegates (needed to win the Republican nomination); and that he also has half of the delegates to this point, (pledged+unpledgedRNC): Romney(562), Santorum(249), Gingrich(137), Paul(69). So that is 562 delegates for Romney, and 455 for "Not Romney", (as some people say). PS: If there is a 'comma-fault', is there also a 'semicolon-fault' ? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
From time to time, the NRC via GOP.com will put out their official delegate count, to date. Here is the latest I can find (for March 9th) [20] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now all the territories are in the resultsection in 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. But this is a bit of fictionally writing. According to the Samoa caucus Wikipedia article there was no formal vote taken, so there can be no popular winner. Who won Virgin Islands? That is best not discussed further. Guam didnt have a 2nd or 3rd since all elected delegates supports Romney. And in no of the small territories was there a strawpoll of any kind. So no one really won the populare vote. May I suggest that we either
I personally vote for the only keeping PR. Like Real Clear Politicis does it ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html] Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I understand about Louisiana: Louisiana allocates 20 delegates in their March 24 primary election and 18 delegates with April 28 district caucuses; they also have 8 unbound delegates for a total of 46 delegates. [21] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Since we are listing the "states won" by popular vote, Missouri should be counted for Santorum. The primary was non-binding, but so were straw polls in the caucus states. And the Missouri caucuses do not have a straw poll, so the only popular vote was the February primary. -- 89.27.36.41 ( talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree - Unless we start showing half-blank with slashed lines for Maine or any of the other states where the delegate winner won't be known until the state convention then it makes no sense for Missouri either. Santorum was the definite winner there. - Helvetica ( talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I also noticed that Missouri isn't shown at all on the county results page. Again, I fail to understand the logic here...Most of the caucus states have a straw poll (the results of which are released the same day) and a more long and drawn out delegate selection process. The only difference with Missouri is that the staw-poll part is a separate event from the caucus and the caucus itself has no straw-poll of its own. So if we're going with the straw-poll/popular result numbers for every other state then we shouldn't treat Missouri any different simply because their straw poll was on a different day than the start of the caucus process. - Helvetica ( talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of editing the county results map, although I'm not sure if I've broken upload rules or not. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and successfully replaced the file on the results page but I think I accidentally removed the revision history. This is the file that I made, if there are any changes anyone thinks should be made to it I'm up for suggestions. Also, I'm unable to edit it on the main primary page as since I'm a new user and the article is semi protected there are restrictions, but it is changed on the results page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png -- RoteDelano ( talk) 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried changing it last night but it appears to be semiprotected. I was able to change it on the results page but then someone reverted it without stating why. -- RoteDelano ( talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I can now edit the PNG and SVG maps, so if the other editors dont get to it first, just let me know on my talk page. Here is the editor I use for SVG, which anyone can do online. Its pretty easy to use. On that note, the nationwide and Missouri maps are now updated based on the caucus results I was able to dig up. =D -- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
To keep the map discussion in one place, lets have it on the county maps talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png#Missouri Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Louisiana be striped since it still has a caucus that decides over half their delegates? 205.217.238.62 ( talk) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The state map are used in different articles. It would be good to have discussions about this map only at one place - its own talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
How can the page show ron paul with so few delegates? several soruces like this one http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ron-paul-supporters-dominate-gop-caucuses-in-st-louis-jackson/article_4c7977d4-75e0-11e1-858e-001a4bcf6878.html say "Paul's backers won all 36 delegates" in 1 of several caucuses (remember this is just 1)
I am assuming a few select group of people have "made up" rules on what delegates should be counted(i.e only the ones from winner take all states)
p.s i am not a US citizen i live in england, so excuse me if i made some mistake about US politics-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. Why is the word fraud not mentioned once in this article? Its been noted in the media and even with video proof that there was fraud. like what happened in maine, missouri?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- citation needed Hot Stop U T C 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
see 2 videos http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 : why does america want to be more like north korea, i thought it was the land of the free, thats why they keep invading countries to give them freedom. joke, but this is more evidence of fraud, yet this article does not mention the word "fraud" or "vote rigging" even once !-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The Conservative Party of England just had a scandale (again again), it is unfortunatly but it does not mean that Cameron is now the supreme dictator of UK, England is not pointing at Denmark with its nuclear missiles, they are not kidnapping danish citizens. Miscon you stated that you are from England, have you found yourself without food this week, without the right to say what you want, without the possibility to use the internet because of the Conservative Party Scandale? Because what happens in England must be the same as England is just like North Korea now - Right? Dont belittle the suffering of the korean people by making such stupid remarks. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Qoute from
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles."
Here's the thing I haven't understood of Ron Paul supporters: you say 1) that the Paul campaign's master plan to harvest delegates from caucus states is working like a charm, and that Paul actually has the second most delegates of the candidates, but you also say 2) that there is a massive voter fraud operation to disenfranchise Paul voters in the caucus states to deny them delegates. How do you not see the contradiction here? Both claims can't be true, since they pretty much cancel each other out. -- 89.27.36.41 ( talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business insider, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news. video evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. which of these are acceptable to use in this article to bring up fraud/vote rigging e.t.c-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now when you click on a candidates column, it sorts by the first digit only, which is something you might expect from an 80s computer, not a 2012 top 5 web site. So, states where a candidate won 6 delegates comes up before ones where he won 55. 74.67.106.207 ( talk) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, 74 are right. There is a real problem with the table. It does not sort correctly, because it does not conform to the limits of the sortable table. It can be fixed, but there is a price to pay. If a sortable table should sort numbers nothing else must be in that colum. So the RNC brackets have to go. If it should sort the dates right only one date can appear in the colum. But since it is sorted this way from the start the best thing will be to make that colum unsortable. Even though it will mean changes in the table, 74 is right. Why have a sortable table when it cant sort prober. I will work on it. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is working right now, but it was NOT working right when I wrote this. I did read the table and DID click the table twice. But if Mr Shipp would have read MY comment, he would have realized that the issue had nothing to do with clicking on the triangle twice. I was not saying it was sorting least to most. I was saying that it was sorting by the first digit. It sorted from highest to lowest, but it saw 7 delegates as more than 43 delegates because 7 is more than 3. 74.67.106.207 ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The red bar below each candidate's photograph used to give a visual representation of the percentage of the delegates that each candidate has secured. Now it is just a red bar. Any way to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Some more sources on that. There's quite a few actually for a variety of different states in the primary, so it should probably get its own section in the article.
I think this is enough to start with. Silver seren C 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there really 3,488 delegates at stake in the March primaries, as half the delegates is the 1,144 needed to win? Perhaps this was just a typo? Captain Gamma ( talk) 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It currently says Tuesday is April 3rd. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake that someone should fix. 74.90.121.53 ( talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My apologies all I was tired and didn't realize that google gave me a 2011 calendar. 74.90.121.53 ( talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point in including a Twitter based poll here or in a related page? e.g. that compares the relative number of followers or mentions of candidates? e.g. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=41 The split of followers for Romney v Santorum 69/31 correlates with their delegate count (568 v 273). But the split including Gingrich and Paul looks very strange with Newt winning the follower battle. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=154 Is there value to this data in any of the articles? Obviously, it is verifiable fact (since all data is accessible at Twitter.com) but is it neutral or relevant? Uptodateinfo ( talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Twitter is on the rise and I'm ramping up myself. Jack's point is well-spoken: put it in the 'Straw Poll' article. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You might as what have happened to this nice and big resultsection, now we are left with just the small one in the start? The answer is that the results have migrated to the resultarticle. Both to streamline this article but also to bring more attention to the result article. this very good article have all the results, want the numbers then go to the resultpage, they have all the numbers. I hope that fine article will keep getting improved as the certified elected real human alive delegates start appearing. So the 2012 result article one day will be the article with all the delegate and populare count from the whole race. Not just the CNN and Fox projections but the real certified results. If anyone dont like this move they are of course welcome to revert it an we can have a discussion and a consensus about it. This is just my opinion. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor put this on the top of the article. I undid his edit, but I still think it is funny, so I will put it here for other editors to have a laugh
In Calvinball there is only one rule - You cannot use the same rule twice! - I wonder if some Republican state committee members reads Calvin and Hobbes
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse my french, but the editing of this article is just frantic. One day it looks totally different from the previous day. Its no need to remove useful info and media unless its got absolutely no relevance or if its unsourced. Jørgen88 ( talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The title itself is pretty much an attack using the word fucked up instead of a more polit term, but anyway. I dont know about any info that have been removed, but I might be wrong. The words have been copyedited and rewritten to get a better english (what I am thankfull happens to most my edits) and since it is an ongoing process new info are been added and info stated twice in the same section is being compressed. The only info that have been removes I know of is in the primary schedule, and that happened to make the sortable table working, there are limits to how much info there can be in each colum in a sortable table. Personally I also migrated the results to the result article (there is more than one excellent article on this primary) but I see that it is back, No one have commented though in the explanation I have stated in the section just above. Do you have any specific examples of info being removed? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now there is pictures of all 12 major candidates in this race. But it would be nice to have some photos from an actual caucus, from primary voting, from campaign events or from ???
As events unfold the article is going to be a little longer and it could be nice to have such a photo or maybe even two in the later sections. So if anyone have the oppertunity then bring your camera.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The delegate counts in the infobox and later in the article don't match up. Is it supposed to be this way for some reason, or does one of the areas need to be updated? Alphius ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I would myself like to suggest that the projected count in Results#Delegate count be changed from GP to CNN. It is nothing more than a guess anyway and CNN is a highly known source to the general public. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In the past, there has been a lot of TALK about this excellent and important Article. For a few days now there has been no discussion, no edit in TALK. Does this mean we have reached a point to be nominated for award(s)? How now can the Article be improved even more, one asks not rhetorically(?) Thanks to ourselves
for all the excellent work. The Article here is significant, important, and of interest in the United States of America and internationally. And, especially to Jack, Thanks Again,
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
09:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We have made a mistake with North Dakota in the Super Tuesday section. The caucuses that day actually didnt allocated delegates and all the delegates from North Dakota is unbound. Well not a big mistake and not worth mentioning here - Unless.....
The state convention was this weekend and it seems that the state that went to Santorum on Supertuesday actually are going with a majority of the delegates to Romney. That will be the first time this cycle that an unallocating state goes to someone other than the winner of the nonbinding strawpoll. I have tried to find reliable sources reporting, but a google search is full of youtube videos and blogs from Paul supporters screaming fraud. Maybe the convention was taken over by Romney supporters or maybe something else happened. But it is worth keeping an eye on.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have improved the old schedule table with info on the election of all the delegates, not only the unallocated ones. Now each delegation only have one row and then it is possible to sort them according to the 3 important dates for each delegation (see Legend). There was also room for info on the type of caucuses, something that we havent had before. I think that the table is a long way to become more than just a schedule that are removed after the primary have ended. Now it is the table on almost all info on the allocation and election of delegates. Have a look. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
FLASH: just breaking :: . . . Santorum suspends his campaign. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack, Congratulations on your high achievement, Golden Wiki Award, "You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month!" This article should be up for awards also. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that this is a really fine article. Congratulations to all for terrific effort and wonderful results. Poihths ( talk) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If you check under 'History' for this Article, and choose 'Extended tools' you can find that:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has been viewed 445,653 times in the last 30 days.
Yes, search engines come to Wikipedia often.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Concerning "something about the money", this is interesting: List_of_richest_American_politicians which you find as a "See also" under Mitt Romney, worth $200million to $250million. The way I look at it, money is not the main factor in the 2012 presidential election, since the likely-voters of USA will seek truth and value. Yes, super-PACs will be a big factor due to the CFR act and the Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment, free speech. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack and all 200 'watchers', you may be interested to know that I have joined the discussion over at the US campaign finance reform page (McCain-Feingold of late) and you can see the TALK section I started (after linking 'See also' back to here.) ::
Talk:Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_U.S._CFR_on_2012_presidential_.26_congressional_elections
Just like we don't put everything here, we can direct over to this article.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
With Santorum out on april 10 the sections have to be rewritten. Now there will not be a separate April 24 section and the many conventions coming up are no longer so important. I suggest that we end the April and March section with Santorum dropping out (and Gingrich if he does the same tomorrow). We could call it March or ????. And the rest of the results from the primaries could be called later states. I dont think we need the results from the conventions electing unallocated delegates at all. The are already in the result article. Unless the Paul campaign are going to make noise about the North Dakota convention it doesnt really fit in anymore either. Maybe it can be put in the north dakota article. But just for this once I am going to park the lines here to move or put back into the article, have patience:
What are ideas concerning the layout in the rest (future) part of the timeline section? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Gingrich will have no reason to drop out now that Santorum has. Santorum has kicked the door open for him.
Jay72091 (
talk)
02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Could be. And don't discount Ron Paul with some of the Tea Party support.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just modified our paragraph for April results (Santorum suspending his campaigning). Here is how it reads: Four days later, on April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum ‘suspended’ his campaign.[56] Romney said that Santorum had made a important contribution to the political process and that he will continue to have a major role in the Republican Party.[57] Santorum carried eleven states, six states that allocated delegates and five non-binding caucus states, securing 202 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
There is further discussion of Santorum at Talk:Rick_Santorum_presidential_campaign,_2012#Who_gets_his_delegates ... FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I had some good information under the April pictures of Romney and Santorum. It was at first modified, then added to, and then entirely deleted. Can I suggest the following brief info:
Around April 8, 2012, both Romney and Santorum took a four-day Easter break from campaigning. [2] [3] At that date, the delegate count from WSJ was Romney 661, Santorum 285, Gingrich 136, Ron Paul 51, and Huntsman 1 delegate. [30] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Somebody added a "Projected first Republican National Convention vote" based a single white paper which was released: [31]. I have many qualms about the methodology in this, and the author seems to have a very poor understanding of statistics (e.g. says that having multiple independent sources with error margins "increases" the uncertainty, when it does exactly the opposite). As well as a bunch of very unlikely consequences of Santorum dropping out (Romney loses a third of his support, Ron Paul doesn't lose any, Ron Paul gets half of Santorum's voters, some of gingrich's, Romney gets none). The net result is the projection that Ron Paul will pick up 550 of the remaining delegates, but Romney will only get 310. Now I don't contribute to wikipedia much, so I don't know the procedures for debating or assessing the validity of external sources, but this does seem very out of line with virtually ever other projection by any credible media source, as well as seeming just generally unlikely to any independent observer.
Additionally, I can't actually find the article anywhere else to verify its source- on the wiki page it says "David MacMillan III University of Northern Alabama", but I can't find the article linked to anywhere else on the internet- it seems to literally just be a pdf hosted on a pdf hosting service with no other information about the author than their name. It could literally just be some random person's vague projections formatted into a pdf and uploaded on the internet. Is that really worthy on it's own row, presented as of comparable accuracy to totals from sources such as the green papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 ( talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Athleek123 ( talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this clearly shows the source is not anywhere near neutral. This is important in this case because the projections can vary wildly depending on the assumptions you make and almost anybody could justify their projections as being plausible whilst making the outcome suit the candidate they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 ( talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bluntly, if you'd read the WP:RS page, you'd know that anything that might be questioned in a WP page must be sourced to a reliable source. Period. Not necessarily unbiased, but it must be from a reliable source. You'll note that any projections are both sourced to a WP:RS and we say where it's sourced from so that readers can estimate potential bias in their eyes. But you MUST have a reliable source. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a move afoot to coalesce behind Romney (and soon). [32] Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the Republican nomination will not be secured, formally, until the first vote at the 2012_Republican_National_Convention starting August 27th in Tampa, Florida. When will the 1,144 votes actually be secured? Not till the end of May, not that far away now. Look to Texas to be the 'clincher' and California to be the 'hammer', (my words, original thought/research). Here is the path to securing the nomination delegate votes (with each state, total delegates & cumulative count, if Romney is allocated them all) :: Start with today from our Table(591) +CT(28,619) +DE(17,636) +NY(95,731) +PA(72,803) +RI(19,822) +LA(46,868) +ID(46,914) +NC(55,969) +WV(31,1000) +OR(28,1028) +AR(26,1064) +KY(45,1109) +TX(155,1264) +CA(172,1436). And so you see that Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky can all vote and still not reach the magic number of 1144 (1,144 is half plus one) . . . so if everybody jumps on board with Mitt Romney, he goes over the top with Texas on May 29th and definitely then with California on June 5th. After June 5th, only Nebraska, Montana, and Utah will be voting. So, you see, although Romney is on a roll, so to speak, (Ann too now that she has a Twitter account and secures the Motherhood vote) the requisite number isn't reached until Texas votes. What if Ron Paul takes his home state of Texas? Then CA would be both the 'clincher' and the 'hammer', in my humble (but obvious) view. All of these states vote not only for their presidential choice, but regarding other details such as their state delegation, local Republican arrangements, and state races. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is something to keep in mind (both for rules and for nomenclature).
"NRC Delegate Count ... April 2012 ... Posted by: Sean Spicer, Communications Director [for NRC]"
"Please find below an updated delegate chart. Please keep in mind that these numbers do not reflect any potential delegate disputes and this information may change based on the results that come in after the initial vote that may affect the delegate count."
"The following is based on the information provided to the RNC by each state party which has held a presidential primary, caucus or convention to date where delegates were bound or delegates have publicly endorsed a candidate. It does not include states which do not bind delegates. These numbers reflect the current results of the Congressional Districts and the actual results may not be certified for up to 2 weeks. The current delegate tracking is set out in the chart below:
DELEGATE COUNT AS REPORTED BY STATE PARTIES "
[35]
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
12:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum officially dropped out of the race a few days ago; why is he still featured in the infobox on the right? Only show the 3 CURRENT candidates!
68.174.106.170 (
talk)
02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I obviously agree that Santorum should be included in infobox, but there should be a clear indication that he is out of the running. I have two proposals: his image being in black and white (and the same for Paul and Gingrich when we assume they will eventually leave). Or an alphabetical footnote in the infobox, next to the delegate count: (a) Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10, 2012. Sir Richardson ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sir Richardson, why would "we" assume that Gingrich and Paul will eventually leave? Both have stated numerous times that they are going to stay in the race until the convention. Paul has already won Minnesota and Iowa so I don't see him going anywhere, although Gingrich has been bouncing checks just to get himself on ballots so I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave. Mathias 173.250.193.35 ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
He only suspended and hasnt endorsed. Hes also one of the "final four" and a major competitor. I say keep em all at this point. We can order them by final delegate totals when those are available, or at the convention (unless he releases them prior to the first vote).-- Metallurgist ( talk) 10:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't see Perry or anyone else there, so I assume this lists current candidates, which at this point are two. 67.87.36.182 ( talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have editing rights to this article, but the phrase "five state" should be "five states" in the most recent paragraph.
Thanks.
Done - Thanks for spotting the error.--
JayJasper (
talk)
20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Currently, our article hints it was because of money. I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate in our brilliant article, and it does not have a footnoted external reference.
Here are some additional reasons that could be documented and still be not up to our standards:
It could also be said that Gingrich has no money, but is it appropriate? Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
We used to have a paragraph I would keep up (regarding the next Republican primaries) which I thought readers would appreciate. What happened? Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)