![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
He said he wasn't interested in running for president but he didn't completely rule out a campaign. He also refused to sign a pledge that he would complete his term as Governor. Seeing as it's very common for candidates to state that they are not interested in running and end up running anyway, I think he shouldn't be in the declined group. 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. "I'm not interested" is not a shermanesque statement. A lot of them say that or something similar before they actually become candidates. He should be re-listed as a potential candidate.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with above comments. Kasich has not definitively ruled out a run.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "jockeying":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it too early to start trying to find data for when states plan on holding their primary? Casprings ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
First off, about the Prohibition party guy. Let's get rid of him. He's not an actual candidate, the GOP leadership and the 24 hour news networks pretty much choose the candidates who get into the debates that are held starting in the summer, and he's never going to get invited. Second of all, I've put up a very tentative schedule. We also need to put in those who have been invited to some of the early forums, like Rubio or Cruz. They may be "whackos" but they're taken seriously by the powers that be, sort of like Michelle Bachmann last cycle. Last time, the GOP primary got four or five long articles. we've got to get ready for that and figure out a format. The way it looks now is not the way it'll look in a couple of weeks, and the way it looked yesterday is unacceptable. Ericl ( talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The page/Article (here) is going fine; it evolves as less notables drop off. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be a service to the reader if the candidates were ranked to the more probable candidates were more prominently featured over the hopeless. Luckily there is a NPOV way to find out who are the candidates with the highest chance of winning - betting site odds, who have a very strong monetary incentive to unpartially rank the candidates. I suggest we use the odds at [3] to rank the candidates. Thue ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Can this URL be part of the Article here? It is very interesting and shows the surge of Scott Walker. If you want a good chuckle, click over to the Democrat favs/odds. Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden lead the pack. -- AstroU ( talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Romney speaks the truth, FYI. Some will seek a Reagan-Conservative to run.
Headline-1: Romney announces he will not run for president in 2016
QUOTE: "Mitt Romney announced Friday that he will not run for president in 2016. The announcement comes after the 2012 GOP nominee told donors earlier this month he was considering a run." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid
QUOTE: For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier. “There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.” -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-3: Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in '16
QUOTE: "The exit of Romney from the campaign most immediately benefits the other favorites of the party's establishment wing, including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Follow-up comment: In the first interview since dropping out of the Republican primary race, Mitt Romney told FoxNews Neil Cavuto (1) younger people can run; (2) there are many great Republican hopefuls: voters (and donors) can choose; and (3) Then Mitt Romney (when pressed) says "it isn't going to happen" that he would be the Republican banner bearer. [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Being a former lawyer, Neil Cavuto notes he never said never.
References
Senator Paul announces that he announces tomorrow. Glenn Beck (radio) team says it is like calling your mother-in-law and saying, "On Tuesday, I'm going to phone you and tell you I'm pregnant" and maybe establish a 'pregnancy exploratory committee'. Glenn Beck plays the Rand Paul ad (giving it free radio time) and says it is 'electric' and better than the Ted Cruz ad which simply says he is running. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Headline: At NH summit, GOP 2016 hopefuls take turns attacking Clinton ahead of her arrival
QUOTE: " GOP presidential hopefuls turned up their attacks Saturday on Hillary Clinton -- taking turns piling on the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner during a party summit in New Hampshire. The first five 2016 GOP presidential candidates or potential candidates used at least some of their stage time at the Republican Leadership Summit, in Nashua, N.H., to criticize Clinton, who is scheduled to be in the state Monday and Tuesday." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) -- Example: “Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began his remarks by pretending to have mistakenly read a Clinton stump speech, saying he wanted to talk about President Obama’s “great success” in the Middle East. “I’m sorry, this is Hillary Clinton’s speech, not my speech,” Jindal said to laughter and applause.”
I put in the disclaimer about minor candidates because it is necessary. Jack Fellure, for example, had he not managed to get the nomination of the moribond Prohibition Party last time out, wouldn't be notable at all and shouldn't really be listed. However he is, and the 90 or so other "no hopers" should be mentioned before the 35 or so that are going to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Arizona are listed. Ericl ( talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:NODISCLAIMERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.235.103 ( talk) 18:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The other main Wikipedia page for candidates announcing is Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 -- This other main page on candidates announcing will have specifics on their announcements.-- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the addition by Spartan Seven to the article is grand. The ten Republicans who have declared are represented by their creative Logos, and in alphabetical order too. The first debate is limited to the best polling top ten, and so as others declare, being in the first debate will be very important to winning the early Republican primary balloting (Iowa, NH, etc.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
→== The best ticket ==
The VP selection can make all the difference in a winning ticket. This is the first time I've seen an early move to announce a possible ticket, rather than just the presidential hopeful: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/walker-ticket-include-rubio/2015/06/12/id/650188/? -- FYI, AstroU ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: Reporter/writer Lisa Riley Roche of the SLC Deseret News is close to the Romney situation and writes:
Headline-1: Romney not second-guessing decision not to run third time for president
QUOTE: "DEER VALLEY — Mitt Romney said Friday he's not second-guessing his decision not to run again for president in 2016 to make way for a candidate with a stronger shot at winning the White House for Republicans. "I didn’t make the decision not to run again because I didn’t like it or I didn’t think I was up for the task," Romney told reporters..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) -- Ticket was discussed at the DEER VALLEY Mitt Romney "Summit"
Headline-2: Donald Trump: Oprah would be a "great" vice president
QUOTE: "After his splashy announcement Tuesday that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination, billionaire businessman Donald Trump made another bold declaration: Oprah Winfrey would be a "great" running mate." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-3: "Handicapping the 2016 vice presidential field. Yes, you read that right."
QUOTE: "1. Susana Martinez...; 2. Marco Rubio...; 3. Scott Walker...; 4. Bobby Jindal...; and 5. Brian Sandoval. On paper, the governor of Nevada is just what the GOP needs. He's a popular, moderate Hispanic executive from a swing state. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I don't think a liberal newspaper has good insights on Republican VP choices, but it is an interesting list, don't you think?
Why is this section needed? This is a page with regard to the presidential candidates themselves, not their potential tickets. Such information should be posted on their own page and/or the general presidential election page. In many, if not most cases, VP nominees won't even be announced until a single candidate emerges at the earliers in late spring of 2016. Michaelopolis ( talk) 03:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Right now candidates that have ended their campaign are put last while others are put in alphabetic order. What is the reason for this? To me it seems that it defies the whole idea of the timeline. I suggest that we either
1.follow the standard that was agreed on in 2012 - The precedence - that will be listed in chronological order
OR
2.listed the candidate in alphabetic order no matter if they have retired from campaigning or not.
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The two sources used for the primary dates contradict each other. For example, the Green Papers ref gives the date for the Republican Iowa caucus as January 5, while the Election Central site gives the date as January 18. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Our article (herein) currently says that the first Republican Primary voting will be in Iowa on February 1, 2016. This is confirmed in the Green Papers. [5]
Iowa Republican Presidential Nominating Process
AstroU ( talk) 11:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that states are beginning to put candidates on the ballot, how about we use that as a criterion. All the 15 are on the ballot in South Carolina, 14 are on the ballot in Florida (Carson sent the check and the rest except Pataki are going to the mandatory cattle call in two weeks), and Alabama and Arkansas are going to announce who qualified tomorrow. Not only that, all 15 have scheduled "ceremonial" filing photo ops in New Hampshire. We can change the criterion from five major polls to four states on Friday, and up it to ten by the end of the year. Everson might get on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire, and no one else will get beyond two. YoursT ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Headline-1: CNN sets debate criteria using Iowa, New Hampshire polls [, and national polls]
QUOTE: "Candidates can qualify for the debate through one of three ways: polling averages nationally, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire....According to CNN, nine candidates would currently make the cut: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie [in that order]." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 01:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the main election article concering the photos used for the major republican candidates. If you'd like to participate, here's the link to the discussion: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article?.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So why doesn't the Iowa Caucuse have a page? Why did the NH '16 page get redirected as "premature?" Where is the results page? There are 15 major candidate on the ballot in at least 10 states (including two that have withdrawn). In two months, this page should be unrecognizable. Let's get ready, hokay? 70.107.133.97 ( talk) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The grid that displays primary/caucus info lists some "Party Leaders" as pledged and other "Party Leaders" as unpledged.
(Aren't they all unpledged? Or is this a mistaken presumption on my part?)
The article should be edited to list all "Party Leaders" as unpledged.
209.212.5.67 ( talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
On the color-coded map at the top, Minnesota is incorrectly shown in gray (April). The Minnesota caucuses are on Super Tuesday, March 1st, as shown farther down in this Wikipedia article, and in other sources (three shown below). The map should be corrected. (Perhaps Minnesota was mistaken for Wisconsin, which is shown in green and probably should be gray?)
[1] [2] [3] Bjnord ( talk) 14:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I have added a new section about the money with a table of all the money spend (as they have been released bey the FEC). But I need some help to expand the section with a bit of explanation and the narritive. If you have time to help you might find informations at Opensecrets.org. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am the Republican Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) for my precinct in Washington. Based on a call for PCO's I participated in yesterday evening, I'm not sure if the information on this page about the Washington caucus/primary process is entirely accurate. I believe the precinct caucuses on Feb 20 do kick off the process which eventually leads to the allocation, at the state convention from May 19-21, of delegates to the national convention. However those delegates must pledge to respect the outcome of the primary--taking place later on May 24--and divvy up their votes at the national convention in accordance with the outcome of that primary. This is on the first ballot at the national convention. In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates are released from that pledge for the second and subsequent ballots. Thus it seems to be a hybrid process. The actual allocation of delegates--the people chosen--is based on the caucus process but how those people are pledged to vote is based on the primary. I do not yet have a citable reference for this--just the phone call--but if and when I find such a reference I'll update this page accordingly. Dash77 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
A footnote or two for the SCHEDULE section (would help the readers) in
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_of_primaries_and_caucuses
such as for "winner-take-all for district delegates by district vote"
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A great Wall Street Journal article that will report through convention time.
Headline-1: The Path to a Presidential Nomination
QUOTE: "Some 2,472 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention to select the presidential nominee. The winner must carry 1,237—half of the total, plus one. But the first contests are more about building credibility and momentum than winning delegates." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
In order to keep this in one place, if anyone disputes the 7-7-6 breakdown, it would be great to pitch in at Talk:United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016#Delegate_rounding, where some are trying to figure this out. 86.3.110.34 ( talk) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Even though Rand Paul has dropped out, he still has a committed delegate from Iowa. There are likely to be a few more candidates in this situation as the primaries progress. How should the delegate counts of suspended candidates be reflected in the article? Perhaps in the table of candidates with a greyed-out row? Or a notation elsewhere in the article? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The official result of the Iowa Caucuses are out and the reallocation of the suspended campaigns delegates will not happen before the CD and State Conventions. Most likely many will suspend before that time. But I made a little spreadsheet just for myself using the simple formula of the Iowa Delegates (Candidates popular vote multiplied with 30 divided by the the Total popular vote subtracted the popular votes of the suspended campaigns)). And if reallocated today the two delegates from the suspended campaign (Paul and Huckabee) would go to Cruz and Christie. The confusion about the Iowa delegates might be the change of the RNC delegates status from last time. This time they are also bound to the election result. That means Iowa are sending 30 bound delegates not 27. As candidates suspend their campaign their Iowa Delegates will drop out of the delegate count to reappear after April 9 and May 21. I am sure this will be a cause of more enjoyment and confusion in the future. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Could anyone please explain in the article, what "Delegate hard count" and "Delegate soft count" means? Thx. -- GDK ( talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html#Hard To quote: "The "soft count", on the other hand, will reflect the support for each presidential contender by either Pledged or Unpledged delegates- whether formally allocated yet or not- as best can be estimated by "The Green Papers"; Etc." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Democratic Primaries Page has a timeline with just the first contest (Iowa) and the Convention. So did the 2012 Republican Primaries page. This page's timeline has every contest up to Super Tuesday, but nothing after. In the interest of consistency, shouldn't the New Hampshire, SC, Nevada, and Super Tuesday bars be removed from the timeline here? Thunderstone99 ( talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Spartan7W and Spirit of Eagle: Anything you'd like to add? Abjiklɐm ( tɐlk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whom Hpgjg is but I'm beginning to think he's a troll, he's undone several of my edits insisting that any news articles that don't explicitly have Chris Christie himself announcing the end or suspension of his campaign are just "rumors" which is patently absurd. CNN would not be posting an article on their website if they felt it was just a rumor. Too many news organizations have been burned like that in previous election cycles by announcing these types of events prematurely or falsely. They do source their own articles, so I think we can take it as an article of good faith on their part that it's not just a rumor. Hpgjg also has no talk page even though his earliest change was in 2011, & is a relatively new user edit-wise, hence deepening my suspicions that he's a pro-Christie troll since 13 out of his last 20 edits in his history are for this page. Stentor7 ( talk) 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As we all know, the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, with New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada coming soon thereafter. As we know from previous years, multi-way races mean that we will likely have a map full of two, three, four colors, perhaps more with this field, to illustrate winners of respective states. In order to differentiate between them, colors are assigned to each candidate to be filled in on the map as the results are finalized state-by-state.
Since the first contest is soon to be upon us, it is prudent we establish a set of colors for each candidate that in the event of their acquisition of contest victories and delegate tallies, we have a uniform standard by which to base map making, so various editors (myself included) can create maps to keep the situation up-to-date. As such, I have created this table and assigned each candidate their own distinct color, chosen to have a wide array of colors that cannot be easily confused with one another, but which are not terribly unpleasing to the eye. Here they are:
Jeb Bush | Ben Carson | Chris Christie | Ted Cruz | Carly Fiorina | Jim Gilmore |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mike Huckabee | John Kasich | Rand Paul | Marco Rubio | Rick Santorum | Donald Trump |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Some colors, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee's colors are derived directly from their campaign logos or materials, others are simply arbitrary because most campaigns have very similar combinations of red and blue and thus the map would be very difficult to distinguish.
Hopefully we can all abide by this standard, and I will endeavor to make the official maps as contests unfold to reflect them. Thanks! Spartan7W § 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 ( talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Following the discussion above: the infobox colours for Cruz and Trump are quite hard to distinguish—any chance we could brighten up or switch one of them? It'd be nice to make it consistent with the county map, but that map is basically indecipherable with the current colours ( see the old version using them here). — Nizolan (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you all want it, I have a county results map File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
These can be used as backgrounds, such as in primary result table, to correlate colors for each candidate
{{Cruz16}} {{Trump16}} {{Carson16}} {{Bush16}} {{Rubio16}} {{Gilmore16}} {{Kasich16}}
Spartan7W § 23:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As this article is expanding do we really need to mention the other candidates in the candidate section? Does Messina and Cook really need to be in this article and not just in the main article about candidates? And maybe someone can explain to me why these people and the couple of handful of candidates on the New Hampshire election ballots dont need to be there? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 03:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Done -- People didn't even know their names. --
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
11:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Listed elsewhere (for the unknown candidates).
Should we add all canidates who had won 1 state or 5% of the votes? Ghostmen2 ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Follow the formal announcements of debate-invites. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think in repleacing the portrait used for Jeb Bush, with this one:
It's used in Jeb's article and has a better quality and caption. What do you think? -- Nick.mon ( talk) 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There have been many changes, unexplained, by IP address editors changing Trump and Rubio placement. As it stands, both candidates have the same delegate totals. As such, a tie is broken by alphabetical order, as such is the only was to impartially break such a tie. In the primaries, delegate counts, NOT popular votes matter. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the delegation to Obama, and thus lost the nomination. Here, delegate counts matter, as such is the race for the nomination. Because of this, Marco Rubio precedes Donald Trump in alphabetical order, and thus precedes Trump in the delegate listing, whereas Mr. Trump is ahead of Rubio in overall popular vote standings. Until a change in overall delegates moves them around, no changes should occur. Thanks. Spartan7W § 22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a few reasons why the fair use variant of the logo should not be used on this page. One of which is that there is a free use equivalent that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So usage of the fair use version on this page would be a violation of WP:NFCCP #1. Second, the person that adds the image to this page is responsible for creating a fair use rationale on the image page. Every single time the image has been added that has not been done. Fair use rationales must be done for every page. Failure to do so is a violation of WP:NFCCP #10c. The fair use rationale is fixable. The violation of #1 isn't. The fair use version is not necessary. The free use version conveys the same encyclopedic information. Continual insertion of the fair use version is a copyright violation and not an acceptable fair use exemption. -- Majora ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
South Carolina is listed in the table in the article as winner-takes-all, but this Time article describes it as "Delegates awarded as “winner take all” statewide and by congressional district." Ballotpedia backs this up. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Anthony. Yes, there is a Republican rule that voting in February is 'proportional' for allocating the delegates; and Green Papers lists for South Carolina: "Primary: Saturday 20 February 2016; County Conventions: March 2016; District Conventions: April 2016; State Convention: Saturday 7 May 2016" ... "Delegate Selection: Winner-Take-All (by district and statewide), Polling hours 7:00a EST (1200 UTC) to 7:00p EST (0000 UTC). Voter Eligibility: Open Primary; Voter Affiliation: Voter registration does not include party affiliation; 50 total delegates - 10 base at-large / 21 re: 7 congressional districts / 3 party / 16 bonus" which is clear if you are a student of these state elections for their delegates to go to national convention, but not to the newbie. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Let's see how this plays out one week from today, Saturday 3/20/2016.
I would like to see a "States won" column between the columns "Projected delegates" and ""Popular vote" (in the section "Candidates with active campaigns)". This would be important since a candidate needs to be first in eight states to be on the first ballot at the 2016 Republican National Convention, July 18-21. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
For this article, the Candidates with active campaigns is too narrow and needs the 'States won' column added! -- AstroU ( talk) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the Democratic page I think we should update as delegates are projected. Although I wouldn't mind waiting until the convention before adding any delegates to the total at all. But if we wait for state's results to be all the way in before updating the page then what happens for the general election if 4 electoral college votes are projected for Nebraska but 1 is still too close to call (Nebraska splits some of their electoral college votes by district). Do we wait for the entire state's electoral college votes to be projected,ey do we add only the electoral college votes that have already been projected, or do we wait for the electors to actually vote for president? I'm sorry, but if you think we should ignore projections until all the results are in for a state then we should just ignore projections altogether since delegates could possible vote for a different candidate. Prcc27💋 ( talk) 01:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The question when to is important though. The answer is of course they should be updated when the source does it. Right now the source (AP) has not yet called 2 of SC Congretional District. Even though it is clear that Trump has won the whole state with votes to spare. The Green Paper has already given all 50 delegates to Trump and I have noticed that it is often faster than AP. BUT.... I would still say we keep AP as the source because AP is an important trusted source, not just in US primaries, but across the board. Yes, we have to suffer a bit from its delayed reaction, but it is still a more respected source than the Green Paper, at least outside the political geek world. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@ LiveFreeC16: This table is used in previous years as well. It is easier to read, quick, informative, concise, and efficient. It provides further information such as office of the candidate, links to campaign and positions articles, campaign logo, correlation to maps, and condensed, simple counts of popular, delegate, and states won. Spartan7W § 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to come to an agreement, would we be able to add the colors to the new table, add the logos to the new table, and add the offices of the candidate? Like this:
Candidate | Delegates earned overall |
Popular vote | States – First place | States – Second place | States – Third place | Campaign | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
67 | 385,686 | 2 New Hampshire, South Carolina |
1
IA |
0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
11 | 249,645 | 1 | 0 | 2
NH, SC |
![]() | |
![]() |
10 | 239,141 | 0 | 1
SC |
1
NH |
![]() | |
![]() |
5 | 104,589 | 0 | 1
NH |
0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
3 | 77,229 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
4 | 94,413 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
0 | 145 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
0 | 24,353 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
1 | 15,191 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
1 | 10,381 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
1 | 3,560 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
0 | 1,934 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of |
This way, it condenses the section while keeping the essentials of the table that you talked about and removes a lot of redundancy. I can add the remaining colors as well. LiveFreeC16 ( talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A conflict has arisen with an editor who insists on using another image due to a 'smile'. I wish to establish here a consensus as to which image ought to be used to portray Mr. Trump.
No, it is not 'crystal ball' by Dick Morris, but rather the Republican Party rules. Threshold requirements will kick in after Super Tuesday, and if the candidates are still polling in single digits (because the votes are divided over the many candidates) only Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz will have the sufficient 'threshold'. It is predictable mathematics. Here is his observation of the Republican rules: http://www.dickmorris.com/a-two-way-race-by-march/#more-17204 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We could use a little help over at Iowa_caucuses where I just entered "The 15% Threshold" thread into the TALK discussion. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Although I haven't stated this in writing: Actually (to me) it looks like after Super Tuesday (March 1) it will be a four-man race: (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and hopefully, Dr Ben Carson!)
p b p 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
In the 'PROCESS' section, it could be noted as a last sentence/paragraph: The March 1st Super Tuesday voting in 14 states will be 'proportional', followed by a change on March 15th to states being allowed to change to 'winner take all' with Florida, Illinois, Ohio being the first states to allocate delegates all to the winning candidate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that Dr Ben Carson is invited to the debate tonight (having more popularity than Bush and, in particular, Kasich) there are SIX active campaigns. Green Papers lists 13 hopefuls, seven of them having 'suspended' (but not dropped out of the Republican primary race). They, perhaps, hope to reignite in July at the Republican national convention in a brokered convention (if and when one of the top three does not have a simple majority of delegates voting, i.e., less than 1,237 during the first few votes.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
To be on the first ballot July 18-21, a candidate needs to 'win' eight states. What if only Trump and Cruz have the eight states threshold? Today, Newt Gingrich said that Trump may hit a ceiling of 40% and would need to break through [with a less offensive message] and that "in a two-man race, 40% is losing by 60%." Anyway, we shall see, won't we. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
But keep in mind that if Trump "runs the table" and wins the majority in remaining states, or all but a few, and neither Rubio nor Cruz gain the majority in at least eight states, then only Trump would be eligible to be on the first ballot. It is rumored that the NRC would try to change the rules of an open convention at convention time, and say the threshold to be on the first ballot be reduced to winning at least five states, or some other consession to allow others besides Trump to be on the first ballot. In the TABLE watch the last column. If Kasich loses his home state (Ohio) to Trump, pressure will take him out, (in my humble crystal-ball). -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The official tallies of the New Hampshire election were released today, giving Trump 11 and Rubio 2 instead of the unofficial count that had Trump at 10 and Rubio at 3.
Other sources reporting the same thing are: http://nhpr.org/post/trump-awarded-11-nh-delegates-after-primary-victory-nhgop-announces-0 and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/270310-trump-wins-additional-nh-delegate
The New Hampshire state GOP's official announcement is here: http://nh.gop/2016/02/22/nhgop-announces-certified-delegate-allocations/
These are official tallies, not the unofficial estimates that have been cited previously. 108.249.89.120 ( talk) 05:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's suppose one of the top three candidates “runs the Table” ...
Which state puts the top candidate beyond a simple majority of delegates?
Let {C1,C2,C3} be {Cruz,Rubio,Trump} and Let C1 win 100% in the ‘winner-take-all’ states and 50% in the states dividing delegates proportionally.
Add the delegates from Feb-June to project the running cumulative results: IA15+NH12+SC25+NV15+AL25+AL14+AR20+GA38+MA21+MN19+OK22+TE29+TX78+VT8+VA25+WY15+KS20+KY23+LA24+ME12+PR12+HI10+ID16 +MI30+MS20+USVI5+Guam5+DC10+FL99+IL69+MO52+NC36+M9+OH66+Samoa9+AZ58+UT20+ND28+WI42+CO37+NY95+CT14 +DE16+MD38+PA54+RI10+IN57+NE36+WV34+OR14+WA22+CA172+MT27+NJ51+NM12+SD29.
Adding these delegates will give us a “rough guestimate” of what to expect:
IA15+NH27+SC52+NV67+AL92+AL106+AR126+GA164+MA185+MN204+OK226+TE255+TX333+VT341+VA366+WY381+KS401+KY424+LA448+ME460+PR1462 +HI472+ID488+MI518+MS538+USVI543+Guam548+DC558+FL657+IL726+MO778+NC814+M823+OH889+Samoa898+AZ956+UT976+ND1004+WI1046+CO1083 +NY1178+CT1129+DE1208+MD1246+PA1300+RI1310+IN1367+NE1403+WV1437+OR1451+WA1473+CA1645+MT1672+NJ1723+NM1735+SD1764.
Maryland and Pennsylvania vote on April 26th, not that far away, to exceed the 1,237 delegate simple-majority. Still, there will be a somewhat open convention.
PS: Current NRC rules: C2 & C3 need to win eight states to stay in.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I live in ND. The ND Primary is March 1st "Super Tuesday". In this article it says April 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I switched it to March 1st in the article. If someone wants they can move it up so it is with the other Super Tuesday states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 ( talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
What is confusing is the fact that ND have seceded from the Presidential Primaries. Their Caucuses have been held since Jan 1 and will end on Mar 1. No straw poll is taken and no delegates to the state convention will state their preferences. At the no straw poll will be taken and no delegates to the national convention will state their preferences. The State Convention will "discuss" and "advice" whom to vote for at the National Convention but all delegates are free to vote for anyone they like, as the rules clearly specify. A different way to go. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe the convention is in April but all of us GOP in Fargo are voting March 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.63.219 ( talk) 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me if I bring up a closed discussion or beating a death horse so to speak. But is it really the consensus to keep the A timeline instead of the B timeline. We know the A (the one presently in the article). The B option has the start of the primaries (Iowa Caucuses) and Supertuesday with nothing in between. I it just me that feel that the B version is easier to read? I really feel that the current option had gotten out of hand. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
Timeline generation failed: 5 errors found
Line 39: from:05/04/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:BC text:"
B. Carson"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 40: from:03/23/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:TC text:"
T. Cruz"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 41: from:07/21/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:JK text:"
J. Kasich"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 42: from:04/13/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:MR text:"
M. Rubio"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 43: from:06/16/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:DT text:"
D. Trump"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
Timeline generation failed: 5 errors found
Line 39: from:05/04/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:BC text:"
B. Carson"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 40: from:03/23/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:TC text:"
T. Cruz"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 41: from:07/21/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:JK text:"
J. Kasich"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 42: from:04/13/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:MR text:"
M. Rubio"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 43: from:06/16/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:DT text:"
D. Trump"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
B for the reasons I mentioned above. The time between Iowa and Super Tuesday are the early primaries and it doesn't matter at what point exactly a candidate drops out. We should keep only the most important milestones. B is much cleaner and readable. Abjiklɐm ( tɐlk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I really like the Overview (subsection) under the Timeline of the race (section) with the horizontal bar chart, with vertical time-markers. Jack, can you add two more important dates? (1) March 15 "Begins 'winner take all' voting"; and (2) June 7 is the "end of state voting". Being in Denmark, maybe you could do this as we sleep here in CA. On June 7th we will vote "winner take all" and send 172 delegates to Cleveland 'open' convention. Keep up the good work! -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to change the new colour scheme Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll read our own article here and see if this is explained appropriately. I saw this described by Karl Rove on FoxNews TV today:
Super Tuesday will be very interesting and we can assess the improvements to the article then. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC) PS: It is further complicated by the fact that the state Republican leaders will wait and see who has the momentum, or who they want to stand by on principle, and then decide in the state convention or the national convention.
The section needs a bit of work. I was thinking using the table that the [ [6]] page uses under the "Primary schedule" section. Can anyone transfer the info into a neater and more condensed table? LiveFreeC16 ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
He said he wasn't interested in running for president but he didn't completely rule out a campaign. He also refused to sign a pledge that he would complete his term as Governor. Seeing as it's very common for candidates to state that they are not interested in running and end up running anyway, I think he shouldn't be in the declined group. 96.27.124.201 ( talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. "I'm not interested" is not a shermanesque statement. A lot of them say that or something similar before they actually become candidates. He should be re-listed as a potential candidate.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with above comments. Kasich has not definitively ruled out a run.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "jockeying":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it too early to start trying to find data for when states plan on holding their primary? Casprings ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
First off, about the Prohibition party guy. Let's get rid of him. He's not an actual candidate, the GOP leadership and the 24 hour news networks pretty much choose the candidates who get into the debates that are held starting in the summer, and he's never going to get invited. Second of all, I've put up a very tentative schedule. We also need to put in those who have been invited to some of the early forums, like Rubio or Cruz. They may be "whackos" but they're taken seriously by the powers that be, sort of like Michelle Bachmann last cycle. Last time, the GOP primary got four or five long articles. we've got to get ready for that and figure out a format. The way it looks now is not the way it'll look in a couple of weeks, and the way it looked yesterday is unacceptable. Ericl ( talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The page/Article (here) is going fine; it evolves as less notables drop off. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be a service to the reader if the candidates were ranked to the more probable candidates were more prominently featured over the hopeless. Luckily there is a NPOV way to find out who are the candidates with the highest chance of winning - betting site odds, who have a very strong monetary incentive to unpartially rank the candidates. I suggest we use the odds at [3] to rank the candidates. Thue ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Can this URL be part of the Article here? It is very interesting and shows the surge of Scott Walker. If you want a good chuckle, click over to the Democrat favs/odds. Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden lead the pack. -- AstroU ( talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Romney speaks the truth, FYI. Some will seek a Reagan-Conservative to run.
Headline-1: Romney announces he will not run for president in 2016
QUOTE: "Mitt Romney announced Friday that he will not run for president in 2016. The announcement comes after the 2012 GOP nominee told donors earlier this month he was considering a run." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid
QUOTE: For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier. “There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.” -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-3: Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in '16
QUOTE: "The exit of Romney from the campaign most immediately benefits the other favorites of the party's establishment wing, including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Follow-up comment: In the first interview since dropping out of the Republican primary race, Mitt Romney told FoxNews Neil Cavuto (1) younger people can run; (2) there are many great Republican hopefuls: voters (and donors) can choose; and (3) Then Mitt Romney (when pressed) says "it isn't going to happen" that he would be the Republican banner bearer. [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Being a former lawyer, Neil Cavuto notes he never said never.
References
Senator Paul announces that he announces tomorrow. Glenn Beck (radio) team says it is like calling your mother-in-law and saying, "On Tuesday, I'm going to phone you and tell you I'm pregnant" and maybe establish a 'pregnancy exploratory committee'. Glenn Beck plays the Rand Paul ad (giving it free radio time) and says it is 'electric' and better than the Ted Cruz ad which simply says he is running. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Headline: At NH summit, GOP 2016 hopefuls take turns attacking Clinton ahead of her arrival
QUOTE: " GOP presidential hopefuls turned up their attacks Saturday on Hillary Clinton -- taking turns piling on the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner during a party summit in New Hampshire. The first five 2016 GOP presidential candidates or potential candidates used at least some of their stage time at the Republican Leadership Summit, in Nashua, N.H., to criticize Clinton, who is scheduled to be in the state Monday and Tuesday." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) -- Example: “Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began his remarks by pretending to have mistakenly read a Clinton stump speech, saying he wanted to talk about President Obama’s “great success” in the Middle East. “I’m sorry, this is Hillary Clinton’s speech, not my speech,” Jindal said to laughter and applause.”
I put in the disclaimer about minor candidates because it is necessary. Jack Fellure, for example, had he not managed to get the nomination of the moribond Prohibition Party last time out, wouldn't be notable at all and shouldn't really be listed. However he is, and the 90 or so other "no hopers" should be mentioned before the 35 or so that are going to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Arizona are listed. Ericl ( talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:NODISCLAIMERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.235.103 ( talk) 18:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The other main Wikipedia page for candidates announcing is Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 -- This other main page on candidates announcing will have specifics on their announcements.-- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the addition by Spartan Seven to the article is grand. The ten Republicans who have declared are represented by their creative Logos, and in alphabetical order too. The first debate is limited to the best polling top ten, and so as others declare, being in the first debate will be very important to winning the early Republican primary balloting (Iowa, NH, etc.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
→== The best ticket ==
The VP selection can make all the difference in a winning ticket. This is the first time I've seen an early move to announce a possible ticket, rather than just the presidential hopeful: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/walker-ticket-include-rubio/2015/06/12/id/650188/? -- FYI, AstroU ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: Reporter/writer Lisa Riley Roche of the SLC Deseret News is close to the Romney situation and writes:
Headline-1: Romney not second-guessing decision not to run third time for president
QUOTE: "DEER VALLEY — Mitt Romney said Friday he's not second-guessing his decision not to run again for president in 2016 to make way for a candidate with a stronger shot at winning the White House for Republicans. "I didn’t make the decision not to run again because I didn’t like it or I didn’t think I was up for the task," Romney told reporters..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) -- Ticket was discussed at the DEER VALLEY Mitt Romney "Summit"
Headline-2: Donald Trump: Oprah would be a "great" vice president
QUOTE: "After his splashy announcement Tuesday that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination, billionaire businessman Donald Trump made another bold declaration: Oprah Winfrey would be a "great" running mate." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-3: "Handicapping the 2016 vice presidential field. Yes, you read that right."
QUOTE: "1. Susana Martinez...; 2. Marco Rubio...; 3. Scott Walker...; 4. Bobby Jindal...; and 5. Brian Sandoval. On paper, the governor of Nevada is just what the GOP needs. He's a popular, moderate Hispanic executive from a swing state. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I don't think a liberal newspaper has good insights on Republican VP choices, but it is an interesting list, don't you think?
Why is this section needed? This is a page with regard to the presidential candidates themselves, not their potential tickets. Such information should be posted on their own page and/or the general presidential election page. In many, if not most cases, VP nominees won't even be announced until a single candidate emerges at the earliers in late spring of 2016. Michaelopolis ( talk) 03:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Right now candidates that have ended their campaign are put last while others are put in alphabetic order. What is the reason for this? To me it seems that it defies the whole idea of the timeline. I suggest that we either
1.follow the standard that was agreed on in 2012 - The precedence - that will be listed in chronological order
OR
2.listed the candidate in alphabetic order no matter if they have retired from campaigning or not.
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The two sources used for the primary dates contradict each other. For example, the Green Papers ref gives the date for the Republican Iowa caucus as January 5, while the Election Central site gives the date as January 18. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Our article (herein) currently says that the first Republican Primary voting will be in Iowa on February 1, 2016. This is confirmed in the Green Papers. [5]
Iowa Republican Presidential Nominating Process
AstroU ( talk) 11:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that states are beginning to put candidates on the ballot, how about we use that as a criterion. All the 15 are on the ballot in South Carolina, 14 are on the ballot in Florida (Carson sent the check and the rest except Pataki are going to the mandatory cattle call in two weeks), and Alabama and Arkansas are going to announce who qualified tomorrow. Not only that, all 15 have scheduled "ceremonial" filing photo ops in New Hampshire. We can change the criterion from five major polls to four states on Friday, and up it to ten by the end of the year. Everson might get on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire, and no one else will get beyond two. YoursT ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Headline-1: CNN sets debate criteria using Iowa, New Hampshire polls [, and national polls]
QUOTE: "Candidates can qualify for the debate through one of three ways: polling averages nationally, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire....According to CNN, nine candidates would currently make the cut: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie [in that order]." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 01:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the main election article concering the photos used for the major republican candidates. If you'd like to participate, here's the link to the discussion: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article?.-- NextUSprez ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So why doesn't the Iowa Caucuse have a page? Why did the NH '16 page get redirected as "premature?" Where is the results page? There are 15 major candidate on the ballot in at least 10 states (including two that have withdrawn). In two months, this page should be unrecognizable. Let's get ready, hokay? 70.107.133.97 ( talk) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The grid that displays primary/caucus info lists some "Party Leaders" as pledged and other "Party Leaders" as unpledged.
(Aren't they all unpledged? Or is this a mistaken presumption on my part?)
The article should be edited to list all "Party Leaders" as unpledged.
209.212.5.67 ( talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
On the color-coded map at the top, Minnesota is incorrectly shown in gray (April). The Minnesota caucuses are on Super Tuesday, March 1st, as shown farther down in this Wikipedia article, and in other sources (three shown below). The map should be corrected. (Perhaps Minnesota was mistaken for Wisconsin, which is shown in green and probably should be gray?)
[1] [2] [3] Bjnord ( talk) 14:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I have added a new section about the money with a table of all the money spend (as they have been released bey the FEC). But I need some help to expand the section with a bit of explanation and the narritive. If you have time to help you might find informations at Opensecrets.org. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am the Republican Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) for my precinct in Washington. Based on a call for PCO's I participated in yesterday evening, I'm not sure if the information on this page about the Washington caucus/primary process is entirely accurate. I believe the precinct caucuses on Feb 20 do kick off the process which eventually leads to the allocation, at the state convention from May 19-21, of delegates to the national convention. However those delegates must pledge to respect the outcome of the primary--taking place later on May 24--and divvy up their votes at the national convention in accordance with the outcome of that primary. This is on the first ballot at the national convention. In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates are released from that pledge for the second and subsequent ballots. Thus it seems to be a hybrid process. The actual allocation of delegates--the people chosen--is based on the caucus process but how those people are pledged to vote is based on the primary. I do not yet have a citable reference for this--just the phone call--but if and when I find such a reference I'll update this page accordingly. Dash77 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
A footnote or two for the SCHEDULE section (would help the readers) in
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_of_primaries_and_caucuses
such as for "winner-take-all for district delegates by district vote"
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A great Wall Street Journal article that will report through convention time.
Headline-1: The Path to a Presidential Nomination
QUOTE: "Some 2,472 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention to select the presidential nominee. The winner must carry 1,237—half of the total, plus one. But the first contests are more about building credibility and momentum than winning delegates." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
In order to keep this in one place, if anyone disputes the 7-7-6 breakdown, it would be great to pitch in at Talk:United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016#Delegate_rounding, where some are trying to figure this out. 86.3.110.34 ( talk) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Even though Rand Paul has dropped out, he still has a committed delegate from Iowa. There are likely to be a few more candidates in this situation as the primaries progress. How should the delegate counts of suspended candidates be reflected in the article? Perhaps in the table of candidates with a greyed-out row? Or a notation elsewhere in the article? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The official result of the Iowa Caucuses are out and the reallocation of the suspended campaigns delegates will not happen before the CD and State Conventions. Most likely many will suspend before that time. But I made a little spreadsheet just for myself using the simple formula of the Iowa Delegates (Candidates popular vote multiplied with 30 divided by the the Total popular vote subtracted the popular votes of the suspended campaigns)). And if reallocated today the two delegates from the suspended campaign (Paul and Huckabee) would go to Cruz and Christie. The confusion about the Iowa delegates might be the change of the RNC delegates status from last time. This time they are also bound to the election result. That means Iowa are sending 30 bound delegates not 27. As candidates suspend their campaign their Iowa Delegates will drop out of the delegate count to reappear after April 9 and May 21. I am sure this will be a cause of more enjoyment and confusion in the future. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Could anyone please explain in the article, what "Delegate hard count" and "Delegate soft count" means? Thx. -- GDK ( talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html#Hard To quote: "The "soft count", on the other hand, will reflect the support for each presidential contender by either Pledged or Unpledged delegates- whether formally allocated yet or not- as best can be estimated by "The Green Papers"; Etc." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Democratic Primaries Page has a timeline with just the first contest (Iowa) and the Convention. So did the 2012 Republican Primaries page. This page's timeline has every contest up to Super Tuesday, but nothing after. In the interest of consistency, shouldn't the New Hampshire, SC, Nevada, and Super Tuesday bars be removed from the timeline here? Thunderstone99 ( talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Spartan7W and Spirit of Eagle: Anything you'd like to add? Abjiklɐm ( tɐlk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whom Hpgjg is but I'm beginning to think he's a troll, he's undone several of my edits insisting that any news articles that don't explicitly have Chris Christie himself announcing the end or suspension of his campaign are just "rumors" which is patently absurd. CNN would not be posting an article on their website if they felt it was just a rumor. Too many news organizations have been burned like that in previous election cycles by announcing these types of events prematurely or falsely. They do source their own articles, so I think we can take it as an article of good faith on their part that it's not just a rumor. Hpgjg also has no talk page even though his earliest change was in 2011, & is a relatively new user edit-wise, hence deepening my suspicions that he's a pro-Christie troll since 13 out of his last 20 edits in his history are for this page. Stentor7 ( talk) 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As we all know, the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, with New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada coming soon thereafter. As we know from previous years, multi-way races mean that we will likely have a map full of two, three, four colors, perhaps more with this field, to illustrate winners of respective states. In order to differentiate between them, colors are assigned to each candidate to be filled in on the map as the results are finalized state-by-state.
Since the first contest is soon to be upon us, it is prudent we establish a set of colors for each candidate that in the event of their acquisition of contest victories and delegate tallies, we have a uniform standard by which to base map making, so various editors (myself included) can create maps to keep the situation up-to-date. As such, I have created this table and assigned each candidate their own distinct color, chosen to have a wide array of colors that cannot be easily confused with one another, but which are not terribly unpleasing to the eye. Here they are:
Jeb Bush | Ben Carson | Chris Christie | Ted Cruz | Carly Fiorina | Jim Gilmore |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mike Huckabee | John Kasich | Rand Paul | Marco Rubio | Rick Santorum | Donald Trump |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Some colors, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee's colors are derived directly from their campaign logos or materials, others are simply arbitrary because most campaigns have very similar combinations of red and blue and thus the map would be very difficult to distinguish.
Hopefully we can all abide by this standard, and I will endeavor to make the official maps as contests unfold to reflect them. Thanks! Spartan7W § 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 ( talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Following the discussion above: the infobox colours for Cruz and Trump are quite hard to distinguish—any chance we could brighten up or switch one of them? It'd be nice to make it consistent with the county map, but that map is basically indecipherable with the current colours ( see the old version using them here). — Nizolan (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you all want it, I have a county results map File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
These can be used as backgrounds, such as in primary result table, to correlate colors for each candidate
{{Cruz16}} {{Trump16}} {{Carson16}} {{Bush16}} {{Rubio16}} {{Gilmore16}} {{Kasich16}}
Spartan7W § 23:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As this article is expanding do we really need to mention the other candidates in the candidate section? Does Messina and Cook really need to be in this article and not just in the main article about candidates? And maybe someone can explain to me why these people and the couple of handful of candidates on the New Hampshire election ballots dont need to be there? Jack Bornholm ( talk) 03:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Done -- People didn't even know their names. --
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
11:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Listed elsewhere (for the unknown candidates).
Should we add all canidates who had won 1 state or 5% of the votes? Ghostmen2 ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Follow the formal announcements of debate-invites. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think in repleacing the portrait used for Jeb Bush, with this one:
It's used in Jeb's article and has a better quality and caption. What do you think? -- Nick.mon ( talk) 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There have been many changes, unexplained, by IP address editors changing Trump and Rubio placement. As it stands, both candidates have the same delegate totals. As such, a tie is broken by alphabetical order, as such is the only was to impartially break such a tie. In the primaries, delegate counts, NOT popular votes matter. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the delegation to Obama, and thus lost the nomination. Here, delegate counts matter, as such is the race for the nomination. Because of this, Marco Rubio precedes Donald Trump in alphabetical order, and thus precedes Trump in the delegate listing, whereas Mr. Trump is ahead of Rubio in overall popular vote standings. Until a change in overall delegates moves them around, no changes should occur. Thanks. Spartan7W § 22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a few reasons why the fair use variant of the logo should not be used on this page. One of which is that there is a free use equivalent that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So usage of the fair use version on this page would be a violation of WP:NFCCP #1. Second, the person that adds the image to this page is responsible for creating a fair use rationale on the image page. Every single time the image has been added that has not been done. Fair use rationales must be done for every page. Failure to do so is a violation of WP:NFCCP #10c. The fair use rationale is fixable. The violation of #1 isn't. The fair use version is not necessary. The free use version conveys the same encyclopedic information. Continual insertion of the fair use version is a copyright violation and not an acceptable fair use exemption. -- Majora ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
South Carolina is listed in the table in the article as winner-takes-all, but this Time article describes it as "Delegates awarded as “winner take all” statewide and by congressional district." Ballotpedia backs this up. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Anthony. Yes, there is a Republican rule that voting in February is 'proportional' for allocating the delegates; and Green Papers lists for South Carolina: "Primary: Saturday 20 February 2016; County Conventions: March 2016; District Conventions: April 2016; State Convention: Saturday 7 May 2016" ... "Delegate Selection: Winner-Take-All (by district and statewide), Polling hours 7:00a EST (1200 UTC) to 7:00p EST (0000 UTC). Voter Eligibility: Open Primary; Voter Affiliation: Voter registration does not include party affiliation; 50 total delegates - 10 base at-large / 21 re: 7 congressional districts / 3 party / 16 bonus" which is clear if you are a student of these state elections for their delegates to go to national convention, but not to the newbie. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 11:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Let's see how this plays out one week from today, Saturday 3/20/2016.
I would like to see a "States won" column between the columns "Projected delegates" and ""Popular vote" (in the section "Candidates with active campaigns)". This would be important since a candidate needs to be first in eight states to be on the first ballot at the 2016 Republican National Convention, July 18-21. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
For this article, the Candidates with active campaigns is too narrow and needs the 'States won' column added! -- AstroU ( talk) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the Democratic page I think we should update as delegates are projected. Although I wouldn't mind waiting until the convention before adding any delegates to the total at all. But if we wait for state's results to be all the way in before updating the page then what happens for the general election if 4 electoral college votes are projected for Nebraska but 1 is still too close to call (Nebraska splits some of their electoral college votes by district). Do we wait for the entire state's electoral college votes to be projected,ey do we add only the electoral college votes that have already been projected, or do we wait for the electors to actually vote for president? I'm sorry, but if you think we should ignore projections until all the results are in for a state then we should just ignore projections altogether since delegates could possible vote for a different candidate. Prcc27💋 ( talk) 01:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The question when to is important though. The answer is of course they should be updated when the source does it. Right now the source (AP) has not yet called 2 of SC Congretional District. Even though it is clear that Trump has won the whole state with votes to spare. The Green Paper has already given all 50 delegates to Trump and I have noticed that it is often faster than AP. BUT.... I would still say we keep AP as the source because AP is an important trusted source, not just in US primaries, but across the board. Yes, we have to suffer a bit from its delayed reaction, but it is still a more respected source than the Green Paper, at least outside the political geek world. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@ LiveFreeC16: This table is used in previous years as well. It is easier to read, quick, informative, concise, and efficient. It provides further information such as office of the candidate, links to campaign and positions articles, campaign logo, correlation to maps, and condensed, simple counts of popular, delegate, and states won. Spartan7W § 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to come to an agreement, would we be able to add the colors to the new table, add the logos to the new table, and add the offices of the candidate? Like this:
Candidate | Delegates earned overall |
Popular vote | States – First place | States – Second place | States – Third place | Campaign | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
67 | 385,686 | 2 New Hampshire, South Carolina |
1
IA |
0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
11 | 249,645 | 1 | 0 | 2
NH, SC |
![]() | |
![]() |
10 | 239,141 | 0 | 1
SC |
1
NH |
![]() | |
![]() |
5 | 104,589 | 0 | 1
NH |
0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
3 | 77,229 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
4 | 94,413 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
0 | 145 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
0 | 24,353 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
1 | 15,191 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of | |
![]() |
1 | 10,381 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
1 | 3,560 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() | |
![]() |
0 | 1,934 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() Inactive as of |
This way, it condenses the section while keeping the essentials of the table that you talked about and removes a lot of redundancy. I can add the remaining colors as well. LiveFreeC16 ( talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A conflict has arisen with an editor who insists on using another image due to a 'smile'. I wish to establish here a consensus as to which image ought to be used to portray Mr. Trump.
No, it is not 'crystal ball' by Dick Morris, but rather the Republican Party rules. Threshold requirements will kick in after Super Tuesday, and if the candidates are still polling in single digits (because the votes are divided over the many candidates) only Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz will have the sufficient 'threshold'. It is predictable mathematics. Here is his observation of the Republican rules: http://www.dickmorris.com/a-two-way-race-by-march/#more-17204 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We could use a little help over at Iowa_caucuses where I just entered "The 15% Threshold" thread into the TALK discussion. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Although I haven't stated this in writing: Actually (to me) it looks like after Super Tuesday (March 1) it will be a four-man race: (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and hopefully, Dr Ben Carson!)
p b p 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
In the 'PROCESS' section, it could be noted as a last sentence/paragraph: The March 1st Super Tuesday voting in 14 states will be 'proportional', followed by a change on March 15th to states being allowed to change to 'winner take all' with Florida, Illinois, Ohio being the first states to allocate delegates all to the winning candidate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that Dr Ben Carson is invited to the debate tonight (having more popularity than Bush and, in particular, Kasich) there are SIX active campaigns. Green Papers lists 13 hopefuls, seven of them having 'suspended' (but not dropped out of the Republican primary race). They, perhaps, hope to reignite in July at the Republican national convention in a brokered convention (if and when one of the top three does not have a simple majority of delegates voting, i.e., less than 1,237 during the first few votes.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
To be on the first ballot July 18-21, a candidate needs to 'win' eight states. What if only Trump and Cruz have the eight states threshold? Today, Newt Gingrich said that Trump may hit a ceiling of 40% and would need to break through [with a less offensive message] and that "in a two-man race, 40% is losing by 60%." Anyway, we shall see, won't we. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
But keep in mind that if Trump "runs the table" and wins the majority in remaining states, or all but a few, and neither Rubio nor Cruz gain the majority in at least eight states, then only Trump would be eligible to be on the first ballot. It is rumored that the NRC would try to change the rules of an open convention at convention time, and say the threshold to be on the first ballot be reduced to winning at least five states, or some other consession to allow others besides Trump to be on the first ballot. In the TABLE watch the last column. If Kasich loses his home state (Ohio) to Trump, pressure will take him out, (in my humble crystal-ball). -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The official tallies of the New Hampshire election were released today, giving Trump 11 and Rubio 2 instead of the unofficial count that had Trump at 10 and Rubio at 3.
Other sources reporting the same thing are: http://nhpr.org/post/trump-awarded-11-nh-delegates-after-primary-victory-nhgop-announces-0 and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/270310-trump-wins-additional-nh-delegate
The New Hampshire state GOP's official announcement is here: http://nh.gop/2016/02/22/nhgop-announces-certified-delegate-allocations/
These are official tallies, not the unofficial estimates that have been cited previously. 108.249.89.120 ( talk) 05:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's suppose one of the top three candidates “runs the Table” ...
Which state puts the top candidate beyond a simple majority of delegates?
Let {C1,C2,C3} be {Cruz,Rubio,Trump} and Let C1 win 100% in the ‘winner-take-all’ states and 50% in the states dividing delegates proportionally.
Add the delegates from Feb-June to project the running cumulative results: IA15+NH12+SC25+NV15+AL25+AL14+AR20+GA38+MA21+MN19+OK22+TE29+TX78+VT8+VA25+WY15+KS20+KY23+LA24+ME12+PR12+HI10+ID16 +MI30+MS20+USVI5+Guam5+DC10+FL99+IL69+MO52+NC36+M9+OH66+Samoa9+AZ58+UT20+ND28+WI42+CO37+NY95+CT14 +DE16+MD38+PA54+RI10+IN57+NE36+WV34+OR14+WA22+CA172+MT27+NJ51+NM12+SD29.
Adding these delegates will give us a “rough guestimate” of what to expect:
IA15+NH27+SC52+NV67+AL92+AL106+AR126+GA164+MA185+MN204+OK226+TE255+TX333+VT341+VA366+WY381+KS401+KY424+LA448+ME460+PR1462 +HI472+ID488+MI518+MS538+USVI543+Guam548+DC558+FL657+IL726+MO778+NC814+M823+OH889+Samoa898+AZ956+UT976+ND1004+WI1046+CO1083 +NY1178+CT1129+DE1208+MD1246+PA1300+RI1310+IN1367+NE1403+WV1437+OR1451+WA1473+CA1645+MT1672+NJ1723+NM1735+SD1764.
Maryland and Pennsylvania vote on April 26th, not that far away, to exceed the 1,237 delegate simple-majority. Still, there will be a somewhat open convention.
PS: Current NRC rules: C2 & C3 need to win eight states to stay in.
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I live in ND. The ND Primary is March 1st "Super Tuesday". In this article it says April 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I switched it to March 1st in the article. If someone wants they can move it up so it is with the other Super Tuesday states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 ( talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
What is confusing is the fact that ND have seceded from the Presidential Primaries. Their Caucuses have been held since Jan 1 and will end on Mar 1. No straw poll is taken and no delegates to the state convention will state their preferences. At the no straw poll will be taken and no delegates to the national convention will state their preferences. The State Convention will "discuss" and "advice" whom to vote for at the National Convention but all delegates are free to vote for anyone they like, as the rules clearly specify. A different way to go. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe the convention is in April but all of us GOP in Fargo are voting March 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.63.219 ( talk) 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me if I bring up a closed discussion or beating a death horse so to speak. But is it really the consensus to keep the A timeline instead of the B timeline. We know the A (the one presently in the article). The B option has the start of the primaries (Iowa Caucuses) and Supertuesday with nothing in between. I it just me that feel that the B version is easier to read? I really feel that the current option had gotten out of hand. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
Timeline generation failed: 5 errors found
Line 39: from:05/04/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:BC text:"
B. Carson"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 40: from:03/23/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:TC text:"
T. Cruz"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 41: from:07/21/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:JK text:"
J. Kasich"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 42: from:04/13/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:MR text:"
M. Rubio"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 43: from:06/16/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:DT text:"
D. Trump"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Unable to compile EasyTimeline input:
Timeline generation failed: 5 errors found
Line 39: from:05/04/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:BC text:"
B. Carson"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 40: from:03/23/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:TC text:"
T. Cruz"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 41: from:07/21/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:JK text:"
J. Kasich"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 42: from:04/13/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:MR text:"
M. Rubio"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
Line 43: from:06/16/2015 till:07/04/2024 color:DT text:"
D. Trump"
- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.
Date '07/04/2024' not within range as specified by command Period.
B for the reasons I mentioned above. The time between Iowa and Super Tuesday are the early primaries and it doesn't matter at what point exactly a candidate drops out. We should keep only the most important milestones. B is much cleaner and readable. Abjiklɐm ( tɐlk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I really like the Overview (subsection) under the Timeline of the race (section) with the horizontal bar chart, with vertical time-markers. Jack, can you add two more important dates? (1) March 15 "Begins 'winner take all' voting"; and (2) June 7 is the "end of state voting". Being in Denmark, maybe you could do this as we sleep here in CA. On June 7th we will vote "winner take all" and send 172 delegates to Cleveland 'open' convention. Keep up the good work! -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to change the new colour scheme Jack Bornholm ( talk) 15:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll read our own article here and see if this is explained appropriately. I saw this described by Karl Rove on FoxNews TV today:
Super Tuesday will be very interesting and we can assess the improvements to the article then. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 06:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC) PS: It is further complicated by the fact that the state Republican leaders will wait and see who has the momentum, or who they want to stand by on principle, and then decide in the state convention or the national convention.
The section needs a bit of work. I was thinking using the table that the [ [6]] page uses under the "Primary schedule" section. Can anyone transfer the info into a neater and more condensed table? LiveFreeC16 ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)