Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Santorum's Delegate Count

Hi - are you sure Santorum only has eight delegates from Iowa? The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/jan/03/gop-nomination-2012-primary-results#state=IA) suggests he now has 13 being as he actually won the state, and before then, I believe it still recorded 12 delegates for him. Meanwhile, CNN's Election Calculator (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/) on which the Wikipedia figure is based completely contradicts this. In fact the more I read into these two sets of figures, the more conflicting the two tables seem to be - they also disagree on the Iowa delegate count - who the hell is right? RomanInDisguise (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hiya! Hey, the article at present seems arranged pretty much by catagories: here are the debates; here, the primaries. Should we switch to something more by chronology (eg: Ron at CPAC; Herm[b] at 1st debate; Michele at IA straw poll; RickP enters; ...; IA Caucuses; Telemundo debate; ...; Facebook debate; SCPrimary, etc.)?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the organization looks great to me, as of this date. It shows those in, those dropping out, even lesser knowns not in debates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . . The chronology is kept by updating the placement of pictures in the article.

Here in WSJ is a very interesting progressive and averaged graphic of polling, from April 2010 to current date. (You can move the slide at the bottom of the line-chart to move back in time.) . . . You can click to see any of the 17 major polling company results, or just click on the RCP average. You can also select to see polling in specific states.[1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

potential USA Today resource, regarding Anonymous (group)

Iowa GOP worried by hacker threat to caucus vote "With two weeks left before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, the Iowa Republican Party is taking steps to secure its electronic vote collection system after receiving a mysterious threat to its computers. (Dec. 19)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See Iowa caucuses or more precisely Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. 99.19.43.221 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa GOP Ups Protection Against Hacker Attack Wednesday, December 28, 2011 by Steffen Schmidt, IAFC Blogger on WNYC. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Greenleaf is not a real candidate

State senator Greenleaf is not a real candidate. He did not file with the FEC and has not run a real campaign. He is not actively fundraising or campaigning, and put himself on the New Hampshire ballot without grassroots support - all that was required was paying $1,000 to be put on the ballot. Furthermore, he has told the media that he has no interest in being president and is only on the ballot as a protest voice for government spending. We gotta read the references here guys, this is seriously dropping the ball.--Screwball23 talk 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We have an announcement and two sources; that's good enough.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If he filed, hes a real candidate. I think the adjective you are looking for is serious.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you gotta read the references, because the 2 ref rule that you are referring to is not nearly as important as an FEC filing, which is lacking for Greenleaf. In the references, he told the press that he is not interested in being president, and is not a candidate running for office. He merely wants to put his name on there as a protest vote in the case that someone recognizes his name and decides to vote for him based on his signature issue, government spending. The motivations behind his New Hampshire ballot are simple; it is cheap ($1000) and easy (no organization or grassroots support necessary). For us to suddenly put a person on the list of presidential candidates based solely on the criteria of ballot access in a single state is way too much; it's undue, unnecessary, not newsworthy, and is not worth placement on the Republican primaries; rather, it can be placed on the NH primary page or Greenleaf's article page, which it is, but on this page, it simply doesn't cut it.--Screwball23 talk 03:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing sudden about this, he's been on here for several months. Second, it makes no difference why he put his name on the ballot, his name is on the ballot nonetheless. Third, this page is no special than any other.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Filing with the FEC is not the requirement. Filing to be on ballots is.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He's on the ballot in only one state. There is zero media coverage of his ongoing "campaign" and his "presidential run" is already covered in his own article page and on the New Hampshire primary page. It is beyond undue coverage to suddenly post him here, on this page, where the larger Republican primary is being covered. I have no objections to this being mentioned on his page and on the NH one, but here, it is senseless to do so.--Screwball23 talk 17:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant to this. That has already been discussed and agreed upon. He has a wikipedia article and two sources confirm he's running for president. He has not appeared in any debates and therefore he is a "minor candidate".--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the relevant conversation : why is he on this page? He's already on the other pages, why here?--Screwball23 talk 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this page have different standards than the others? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This page has no "special" standards, to the best of my knowlegde, that sets it apart from the other election pages on which Greenleaf appears. If anything, his inclusion on this page is especially warranted as this article is about the primaries, and he is on the ballot for one the most crucial and prominent primary elections. As previously pointed out, his intentions are not relevant. He filed for - and is included on - the NH primary ballot, which makes him a de facto candidate regardless of his stated motives, and he meets the core standards for inclusion (WP article, two sources). It is worth noting also that he is (or was) correctly listed - per agreed upon crtieria - in the "other candidates" section. So his inclusion is no way contrary to the current standards.--JayJasper (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget the main criterion upon which the entire list of candidates is founded: they are all declared candidates. Back in April and May, several major candidates had filed FEC filings and still did not meet the criteria. Romney, for instance, established a presidential committee before declaring, as did many others. This made a huge difference months ago, back when many of the candidates were still in speculation; for anyone to suddenly give me the excuse that "motivations do not matter" or "declarations do not matter", I have to point that out because that is flat out false. If declared motives did not matter, Herman Cain would still be a candidate, given the fact that he is still on the ballot in several states. Greenleaf a much different candidate with a much different situation than all the others here. He put his name on a ballot while saying he is not running and saying that he has no intention of being president. He placed his name on the ballot with $1000 in a state that requires no grassroots support. Anyone with the money could do that, and he didn't even declare that he is running for prez. No reasonable person would argue that that makes him a declared candidate. There is also an issue of notability and historic relevance to have his name listed; he is already on the NH page and his own article page contains his NH ballot entry.--Screwball23 talk 02:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a declaration. Putting one's name on the ballot is enough to be considered a candidate. He has a wikipedia article and therefore is notable. Most reasonable candidates do not believe they can win, but hope to influence the discourse. We have references that say Cain is out, we don't have these for Greenleaf. Nevertheless, Cain is still listed as a candidate albeit withdrawn.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Stay on point here. Herman Cain is on the ballot in several states but is not running a campaign and has no intention to run for Prez. That does not change the fact that he was a declared candidate until his withdrawal. Now, Greenleaf's papers prove nothing about him being a declared candidate. Seriously, Sharkey made the list with his FEC filing, and you even used that as a reference to prove that he was a candidate. It was that easy, and 'you used that as a burden of proof then, so now, I want you to be a man of integrity'; check the list here: [2] I don't see Greenleaf here, because he is not a declared candidate. He is just a politician who paid $1000 to have his name on a ballot.--Screwball23 talk 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidates only have to file with the FEC if they raise a certain amount of money. It is a determining factor but it is not an excluding one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Sharkey didn't raise much money (aside from a few wikipedians, probably ;-) and that didn't stop him from filing with FEC. Face it, the only proof you have is from Greenleaf himself, and he is spelling it out clearly that he is not running for president. Now own up to the truth and quit wasting more of my -- and possibly your -- valuable time.--Screwball23 talk 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything I typed above is true. Sharkey did not have to file, but the fact that he did shows that he was running. On the other hand, Greenleaf put himself on the ballot, which shows that he is a candidate for the New Hampshire Primary. Any candidate for the New Hampshire Primary is a candidate for president. Excluding a notable candidate does not make sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are just not cutting it; I made it clear that this is not a debate on whether he is notable enough to get his own page; he is a state senator, and I have no issue with him being on that page. However, on this page, the Republican primaries for the president of the United States is being covered; a single state does not make someone a candidate for president, and you have no evidence to back up this claim of yours that "a candidate for New Hampshire is a candidate for president". That is absolute nonsense, and I think it's one of the most desperate attempts I've ever seen, so I am going to close this conversation. Argue with someone else, because you clearly aren't listening.--Screwball23 talk 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Being on the primary ballot in at least one state certainly does make someone a candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any rationale or are you going to just keep repeating yourself again and again with the same illogical arguments?--Screwball23 talk 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He's running, so he should just be listed in the minor candidates section. One line on the whole page isn't that big of a difference. Thunderstone99 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Greenleaf has now filed with the FEC.--JayJasper (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich: "from" Georgia or Virginia?

Newt Gingrich is listed as "from Georgia". However, on the Newt Gingrich article, it says his residence has been in Virginia since 1999. What determines the "from state" if not their residence? --174.79.254.71 (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he represented Georgia in the House of Representatives Tiller54 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He's almost always listed as being from Georgia or having the home state of Georgia by reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects this. Bastin 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And as far as this article about the 2012 election is concerned, it appears that when he filed with the FEC in May, he listed Georgia as his address. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Occupy movement resource

• http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/30/occupy-protesters-demonstrate-at-two-des-moines-area-events/

99.181.141.49 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See Iowa caucuses or more precisely Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. 99.19.43.221 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Past tense

Why is there sections in past tense. For example, the "Campaign" section under sub-section "Ron Paul and Mitt Romney run again", a paragraph about Ron Paul reads:

"Ron Paul, who ran for president in 1988 and 2008, received warmer support than in previous years. He was a strong fundraiser,[124] raising millions over the Internet through "money bombs",[125][126][127] one-day fundraising events launched by his grassroot supporters.[128][129] His libertarian positions on the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and non-interventionist foreign policy were taken by other candidates, unlike in 2008.[130"

To me this sounds like Ron Paul is out of the race because of how it is written in the past tense. There's other places in the article as well that sound like candidates are out of the race. This should be fixed to present tense where appropriate. For example, instead of "He was a strong fundraiser,....", it can be "He has shown that he is a strong fundraiser,....". 184.14.209.141 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Information needed: open v closed, winner take all vs proportional

It would be very useful if the chart of primaries and caucuses could indicate not only the date and number of delegates but whether the primary is open or closed (ie open to voters of any party or restricted to registered Republicans) and whether they are "winner take all" or if delegates are distributed proportionately. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that it's not as simple as winner-take-all vs proportional. The rules may be different for the statewide and Congressional District (CD) delegates, and there may be thresholds that turn proportional into winner-take-all. This document from the RNC has all the info on the delegate allocation. Simon12 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

potential item "Newt Gingrich call Mitt Romney a liar"

• http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-liar-/1
• http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/01/04/gingrich-calls-romney-liar-over-role-ads/XqQKG5YFJPMrAH20OWKgjJ/story.html
• http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-romney-liar-iowa-caucus-20120103,0,7578014.story

See Political action committee#Super PACs 99.181.146.108 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a notable item since Gingrich and Romney are both calling the other [untruthful], over-and-over. Some say it prepares the eventual Republican nominee for the billion dollar campaign of Obama, noted by Gingrich in many of the debates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Post-Primary Drop-Outs

So far Bachmann has suspended her campaign (as of today, 4 Jan 2012) and Perry is considering it: his announcement is said to be no sooner than Thursday, 5 Jan. So, should Bachmann's drop-out be in its own, so far unique, section? I was thinking it should be--the first contest is in and she's dropped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.246.4 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I corrected my earlier mistake of merging her with the "withdrew before" candidates. Somebody had already put her in a separate section for "withdrew during primaries" and I missed the "during" part the first time and thought they had made a mistake, but they had it right. It's fixed now.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting fun

As you may have noticed. I put the technical stuff first before the narrative. The Ohio plan and stuff should go BEFORE the narrative of the actual primaries. So I put that and the Gallery on top. Since 1980, the actual campaign lasts from Iowa to Super Tuesday, at which point, the rules demand a prohibitive front runner and everything later is moot. It's slightly different this year, and it could go all the way, but the chances of that are minimal. So I figure that we should get everything put in the proper order for what should be the finished articleEricl (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource?

Jon Huntsman, Jr. (Jon Huntsman presidential campaign, 2012) states to Gwen Ifill on today's PBS NewsHour that Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012) has a Cold War mentality.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Check here Huntsman: Republicans Are 'Splintered' Over Foreign Policy, Spending Cuts NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW AIR DATE: Jan. 5, 2012 (SUMMARY GOP presidential hopeful and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said he's optimistic about next week's primary in New Hampshire -- a state he's staked his entire candidacy on so far. Gwen Ifill spoke with Huntsman in Manchester.); excerpt ...

JON HUNTSMAN: Well, in the sense that, whether from a foreign policy standpoint, there's some divide between the isolationist wing of Ron Paul, the Cold War mentality of a Mitt Romney. I think there are different opinions on things like tax reform and how deep to cut and how to deal with Social Security and Medicare. I think there are a lot of differing opinions right now.

99.190.80.182 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate tally

Shouldn't there be a running delegate tally? In the longer term that's actually more important than number of states won. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone with the necessary permissions go to the Infobox template and create a new line for "delegates"? That's a no-brainer and needed for an infobox on presidential elections (at least for the nomination process). I've used the "electors" line for now since that's the closest one available.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You also need to pick a reliable source. There are already discrepancies, with some sources allocating Iowa's delegates, but most agreeing the caucus was totally non-binding, and delegate counts from Iowa won't be known for months. And do you include the superdelegates? Simon12 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate counts are the only metric which matters here. States carried and percentage of the popular vote may be interesting, but they have no bearing on who will win the nomination. The problem with unreliable and conflicting sources for delegate counts is a serious one. I suggest listing a range of delegate counts with citations to justify both the min and max of the range. Mcarling (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Article needs to mention 'super delegates' (unpledged delegates). Here is a ref.: "Out of 2,380 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2012, 463 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 463, 123 are members of the Republican National Committee." [3] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Colours used on the map

A Romney win is currently orange, but wouldn't it be better to use the same colours used on the map on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012? Tiller54 (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Election Cycle - NPOV?

Isn't this section standing out from this article's otherwise pretty neutral tone?

"For the US, it seems the Presidential campaign never ends, and while there is a break between the the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January of 2009 and the following summer, the media soon starts reporting hints of what is to come. During the 2010 midterm elections, various "wannabees" such as Sarah Palin and Donald Trump let their names leak as potential candidates, order to get publicity and make money on books, tapes, cable TV shows, and other ancillary items."--Kotu Kubin (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely POV! Sounds just like an op-ed. It should either be re-written in a more neutral manner or removed altogether.--141.152.79.93 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The passage has been removed. Not only was it POV in tone and unencyclopedic in style, it was unsourced as well.--JayJasper (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bachmann shoudl be put back in the gallery

I don't know why editors have fought so ignorantly over the gallery section. First the Gary Johnson issue, and now this:

Bachmann competed in the primaries and should be included in the gallery. The gallery should include candidates who ran, not just candidates who are currently running; she can be bolded and her candidacy can be listed as withdrawn. That should be the convention, not this nonsense were a separate section for withdrawns is created between her and the early withdrawns. That is just silly, and should be changed because only one candidate will be left in the end anyway.--Screwball23 talk 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. I did not like it how it was last year where Cain was put in a different-shaded square even though he had already dropped out. Not every voter keeps up with politics, and some come to this page for quick information, and will be confused with the different shadings, and wonder "why is he/she included as a candidate when the text says suspended campaign"? Eventually, all the candidates except for one will drop out, so all the candidates will be listed further below the nominee.Stopde (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we go to the convention set by the 2008 primary page? That one had John McCain on top, and listed all the states he won, as well as the 2nd and 3rd place wins by other candidates.--Screwball23 talk 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, hindsight, as they say, is 20–20. In mid-January, there was no infobox (except whatever a since-deleted "Future US elections" provided) and eight candidates listed in descending order of delegate votes (Romney was first). Maybe closer to – or after – the convention, more people can be trimmed from the 2012 article also. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that the "Future US elections" template was simply a notice that the article involved the election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Winner take all states?

IS there some place to find which states are winner-take all states? It would be nice if it were in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.180.176 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. I believe all the contests before Super Tuesday are proportional and after that, they're mostly winner-takes-all, but it would be good to have a note in the table saying so. Tiller54 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This document from the RNC has all the info on the delegate allocation for each state. Not all contests before Super Tuesday are proportional - Florida is winner-take-all. Basically, the states penalized for going early were not subject to additional penalties for being winner-take-all, so could be winner-take-all in spite of the RNC rules. Simon12 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible to add more candidates to sidebar?

It's not a two-way race right now, and it's unclear whether or not it's going to become one by the time convention rolls around. Ron Paul is likely to stay in the race till the end, especially if it's close between the other two candidates. Not a Wikipedia vet here, but it may be useful/possible to add a third candidate to the sidebar, seeing as it remains very close between the top three candidates and there is a possibility three will remain relevant until the end. 99.130.165.200 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Presently, there are three candidates - Romney, Santorum, Paul - in the sidebar.--Newbreeder (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Guys, I see another misguided and useless edit war brewing here. It's about the gallery, and obviously, the edit war is pretty lame. The controversy over having Ron Paul as a 3rd candidate is a nonissue. IMHO, we should have 3 or 4 candidates because the margin of victory for Romney was not very high over Santorum, and the margins of the two was not much higher over Ron Paul either. If a candidate wins delegates, it does not automatically give them placement in the infobox. I am not sure what will happen if a candidate's popular vote total brings them above another candidate in terms of delegate totals, as that might create a debate as to who is more significant. However, given that this is an ongoing primary and things are not predictable or fixed - nor should an online encyclopedia be based on predictions - the top 3 or 4 candidates should be kept and updated as editors have been diligently following in the last week.--Screwball23 talk 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See my comments at "NPOV" immediately below. I was working on layout noticed that post before yours.

The {{Infobox election}} template can handle up to nine candidates, and formats them in rows of three, so there's no real savings of real estate by showing four candidates instead of six. There would be such an advantage in including only three, but as you point out that gets a bit into WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention POV, territory. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone has enlarged the picture of Santorum to the point it is out of scale to the other candidates. Stopde (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The intro to this article has several NPOV issues.

• The sidebar only showed Romney and Santorum. I added Paul, as he is third in a largely three way (right now) top tier race. However, all six of the remaining candidates should be in the info bar. As it is now, it gives the impression this is *only* a three way race, and that certainly isn't a NPOV. All six are still competing, and they shouldn't be given short shrift.
• The delegate counts are using the AP's numbers, when CNN (and other sources) have different numbers. AP is a biased organization (as all are), so we have no neutral, rational basis for using their numbers at the exclusion of everyone else's projections. Factually, *no* delegates have been won yet--IA's delegates are just projections. An educated (and perhaps biased) guess is not a fact.Marktaff (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the other three candidates. At the moment, they're in the order of their Iowa finish, but that can be problematic as the campaign progresses. There are a few options for sequence:

• current total vote count,
• current committed delegate count,
• current total delegate count,
• alphabetical (the old standby)
• something else... whatever

My preference would be alphabetical because a) it's easier to maintain, and b) it doesn't carry a possibly POV implication that the sequence chosen is more meaningful than the others. The disadvantage, of course, is that it's the only choice that doesn't give the casual reader a quick visual clue as to how the race is going.

I didn't include Michele Bachmann, even though she finished ahead of Huntsman, because she's officially withdrawn, but it's only one more entry and can be easily added to be consistent with the "Major candidates" section.

I arbitrarily listed delegate counts according to AP/NYT and CNN, primarily because they're the numbers that were being batted back and forth. Again, more sources – to a reasonable number – can be added following the example there.

(And I agree with the implication in the last sentence of Marktaff's post above that for the moment all the numbers should be zero, but that wouldn't have made for a particularly useful formatting demo.) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that alpha order is the most neutral order for the info box, and it should list the current candidates. I think the candidates section in the main body needs to be reworked so that it:

• Tallies the performance of each candidate (states, delegates, votes), regardless of whether they are still in the race or not.
• Integrates the time dimension, so it is easy to see how and when this progressed from a 10 way race to eventually a single winner. Maybe we use alpha order for current candidates (left-justified), followed by withdrawn candidates, ordered by withdrawal date (most recent withdrawal to earliest withdrawal).

Also, it would be nice to have a running delegate count, ordered by confirmed bound delegates. We can add a blurb above the count noting that we use bound delegates only, because projected delegate counts vary amongst reliable news sources, and that projections of unbound delegates are subject to change as the race progresses. Links to these tallies would make great off-site links from within that section. Some type of bar graph may be helpful with respect to the confirmed delegate counts, with the 50% plus one goal noted on it. Marktaff (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call AP's numbers biased, but they are wrong. (CNN's are also). These states are not like the projections on the Dem side in 2008, where all delegates through the tiers of caucus selection were bound, and it was reasonable to expect the numbers to mostly hold up. Iowa's delegates chosen at the precinct level are not bound, and may or may not have been chosen based on the vote in that precinct. There's been a lot of commentary this week that the AP and CNN numbers are very misleading at best, if not totally wrong. Simon12 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Winner-take-all versus proportional

Given that the "Guidelines for primary and caucus dates" section discusses the difference in date allocation for proportional versus winner-take-all primaries, I think it would be nice to see that distinction (or more generally the type of allocation) represented in the table in the next section, "Primary and caucus dates". -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Calendar section

Texas is listed with the states holding their primaries on March 6th, but the map shows that Texas' primary is in April. These probably can not be both correct. 174.253.65.110 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FIXED. Seems to have been fixed. Out table now correctly shows Texas voting on April 3, which is correct.[4] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Rivals Attack Romney on Bain; Debate Sparked Within GOP Over Free Enterprise; Romney Defends His Record 10.January.2012 by Neil King Jr. and Danny Yadron; excerpt ...

... portraying the former governor as a corporate marauder who profited off the misery of others. Sparking an extraordinary debate within the Republican Party over what constitutes acceptable capitalist behavior, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman laid into Mr. Romney on Monday for his years at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he ran until the mid-1990s. Both Messrs. Perry and Gingrich accused Mr. Romney of having "looted" companies and firing workers for his own gain.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greenleaf is not running

[It's clear as day.|http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/greenleaf-i-m-not-running-for-president/article_051e3563-25ee-5c2a-aa1e-4ca6da0c696f.html] Any one can understand this is not a declared candidate. No one wikipedian can use their influence here to distort the truth, and that is why User:William S. Saturn or anyone else who refuses to listen to the facts will be reported for editwarring should they continue edit wars on this issue.--Screwball23 talk 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the criteria was declared officially of FEC, and Greenleaf has done neither (in fact, he has anti-declared) then I agree there is no point keeping him here (although a mention at the New Hampshire Primary article should exist). Thunderstone99 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Greenleaf has filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Screwball's entire argument was based on the fact that Greenleaf did not file with the FEC and now that he has filed, Screwball has decided to revert again. I'm afraid the only way to end his disruption may be to ban him from this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't even acknowledge my argument, which was based on several factors, including evidence you gave me supporting the fact that he was not a declared candidate. That was in documents you provided, and still you editwarred me for no reason while refusing to use the talk page. The idea that you have the authority to try and block someone is absolute nonsense: you have editwarred and showed ownership over this page and many election pages for a long time now, and you def need to cool it. Regarding this FEC document, I have read it and am concluding in favor of leaving Greenleaf on. I thank JayJasper for providing the document, and have to say shame on you, Mr. Saturn, for providing such misleading documents that not only supported my view but seriously weakened yours, while you refused to even read it. That was a disgusting move, and I think you should know better.--Screwball23 talk 04:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Final vote counts

Just noted that someone added Romney's current New Hampshire votes to his total vote, but didn't yet update the other candidates. Regardless, at time of writing, 70-75% of precincts are reporting in so that count will be incorrect regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.246.4 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate tally in infobox

What is the source for these numbers? If no source is provided, the numbers should be deleted until a reliable source is given.Simon12 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN has a list of delegates at http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r?hpt=hp_pc1 and should be fully updated when polls close, I imagine. We'll have to decide whether the ordering of the candidates will be based on popular vote or delegate count, since it looks like they may not line up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.113.98 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been noted above, and in other places, CNN is wrong about the allocation of Iowa delegates. As also noted in the article, the Iowa caucus was completely non-binding, and therefore any delegate projection from Iowa makes no sense.Simon12 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have it be in popular vote, I believe that is how other primaries go by. Once it is over, candidates with less than 5% would be removed from the infobox. Thunderstone99 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Popular vote is misleading though - it's possible to be the leader in cumulative popular vote but trail in the delegate count. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No verifiable support for this statement

The following sentence has a footnote (#209), but the article linked to the footnote does not support the statement: (Ron Paul's) "libertarian positions on the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and non-interventionist foreign policy were taken by other candidates, unlike in 2008." The statement needs to have verifiable evidence, or it needs to be deleted. 68.189.164.248 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Colbert

Where should we put Stephen Colbert on this page, who recently announced that he is running for President yesterday, after pulling 5% to Huntsman's 4% in a South Carolina poll. I think he stands a good chance of winning the entire nomination at this point, given the dismal performance and popularity of everyone else, so it's probably best to include him. WTF? (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Colbert a Republican? Is he running for the Republican primary? Further, what primaries/caucuses can he join the ballot on? I like the guy and thought is "attempt" back in 2008 was hilarious--but he's a late-entry and I think will drop out after he find a few punchlines. Oh, what about his TV show? --67.248.246.4 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Colbert isn't officially running on the Republican ballot but, since the candidates who have dropped out before are still on it, he is saying for people to vote for Herman Cain as a substitution for himself. I don't think he will do anything outside of South Carolina (even though apparently his approval rating is ranked 3rd after Romney and Obama) but he is involving himself in the primaries so there should be some mention of him here. -- 69.196.178.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

Colbert is a registered Republican, BTW. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a mention of him in the article - something about his poll numbers perhaps - as long as it was made clear that he is running a satirical campaign, and is not listed or identified as an authentic candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Super PAC resource

from four days ago ... Big change in '12: Big GOP money from 'super PACs' by Jack Gillum Associated Press; excerpt ...

Dubbed "super PACs" and flush with millions of dollars, outside groups backing and attacking Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich include a hotel magnate, a casino mogul and former partners at Romney's private equity firm. They're all over the airwaves in the early voting states, at times spending as much as the Republican presidential candidates themselves. the names of these super political action committees — "Winning Our Future" and "Restore Our Future," for example — don't give any clues to the average voter who's behind them. And though big money has always been a part of big elections, this year's efforts are something new, a result of major court rulings easing spending limits by groups not directly linked to the candidates. In many cases, donors' names will remain a mystery for at least weeks longer. But some are known. ...

99.19.45.64 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want a "revert war"

Look, in order to make the article look better, I got rid of a number of minor candidates and consolidated the gallery. A certain "Saturn" has been trying to stop me for some reason. Now former candidates Cain and Johnson were still in the race when the primaries began by putting people on the ballot. There were a whole bunch of debates in which Cain participated in. Johnson was invited to at least three, dammit, that was DURING the primary season. Pawlenty was a major candidate who participated in the debates and only withrew after the "Iowa straw poll", which was a major event that was part of the campaign, he too participated in the debates.

As to people like Jimmy "the rent is too damn high" McMillian, who issued a couple of press releases and sent a filing with the FEC and then did nothing further. They're not really candidates. If you're not going to list ALL the minor candidates who announce they're running as a joke and then do nothing further or just shell out the grand to get on the ballot in New Hampshire, then don't do any of them. Is Steven Colbert listed? NO!!!!...and if he doesn't get more than 1% of the vote a week from now, he shouldn'tEricl (talk)

Thank you for your POV. However, it has no place in this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hay Ericl I am all with you, but there has been war about this topic on the talkpage as long as I have followed it. It is very subjective who is included of the less seriouse candidates and who is not. My guess is that different peoples petcandidate are included if they care to use time to go to war about them.

You are right, all or nothing. So my suggestion is that you simply included all the candidates from the different ballots in this list. You can find them in the result article: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. That would maybe start a seriouse discussion about what candidates to included and who not. Of course this article is mostly made by american, but they sometime forget that it is made to read in all the world. Happy war Ericl :) ---User: Jack Bornholm 23:06, 14 January 2012 (CET)

It is not subjective. It is very clear. A candidate is included if they are notable. Case closed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. However, if a candidate has suspended his/her campaign, like Michelle Bachmann, then they're put in a different section. Putting Greenleaf and McMillion in that part is perfectly fine. Same with Vermin Supreme. the "microcandidates" don't hold press conferences withdrawing, they just walk away. As I've said umpteen times....Ericl (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You need a source for it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole problem is easy to solve. I suggest that ALL minor candidates are removed and a referer to the main article Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012. The important thing is to have an article give both a simple general wiev and insight in the republican primary 2012 and referes interested ones to the several indeep articles.(as it already do). Before the primaries started it was very relevant to know the different minor candidates as the major candidates emerges among them. But now it will be enough for this general article to mention the 10 major candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree w/ Jack. Because the focus of this article is the primaries, rather than the candidates per se, it makes sense to keep only the candidates who had a significant role in the primary season (i.e. debates, polling) now that we know who they are. Or at the very least, we list only those who actually qualified for at least one primary ballot (and of course, meet the notability threshold as well). The Republican candidates, 2012 article - which as Jack says should be linked to from the article - on the other hand lists all the candidates that meet the notability requirements (more specifically, those who have a WP article that can withstand an afd), as its focus is the candidates themselves, whatever level of electoral success (or obvious lack thereof).--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very confusing for the non-initiated

I just want to say: I study politics, I must be in the top 1% concerning political know-how, yet I find this whole affair impossible to understand. A couple of questions:

• primaries/caucases - what's the difference?
• seems like they can also be binding or nonbinding - what changes?
• between states - seems like even in the two neat categories above things change between every state.
• Delegates, Superdelegates, Delegates elected in congressional districts, Delegates elected statewide - what's the difference? in election and in purpose.
• States having reduced numbers of delegates - why would they magically put their date forward? can't the central party force it onto another date?
• Different sources giving different numbers of delegates (AP, CNN, MSNBC).
• opinion polls, straw polls - the way it's presented it seems official, surely this can't be.
• Ohio Plan - is the Republican Party actually a federation of a number of other parties?
• Super-PAC - what's this?
• It also seems as if there are differences with the Democratic Party

I could go on, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole affair is incomprehensible to non-Americans. I doubt whether you Americans understand it yourself. Could you Wikipedians not write an article, "Introduction to the nomination of presidential candidates in the United States", where all this would be neatly resumed into a short paragraph or two? I tried to read Superdelegate, but understanding was impossible. 131.251.252.193 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Ratemonth (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So...you declare yourself a political expert, ask about 10 questions for which many articles already exist and then make the assumption that Americans don't understand their own political system? Does your unprovoked pompousness have any relevance to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.113.98 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Another good article is: United States presidential election. I understand your questions, but there is actually already many different articles explaining the proces. And a good advice, dont annoy americans, especially in here. You never get any constructive from that, americans are usely very sensitive about there country and nationality. Of course most of them understand this system, if you use a moment to understand there very very different society it actually makes sense. Just never try to talk down to them or show any lack of understanding of their ways. It is only americans that can misuse our system in their talkingpoints, simplifying our political systems and values and trashtalk our political leaders, bomb our cities and generally dont care to understand us in any way. We, the rest of the world dont have that right :)

And now to 10 answers from an wikipedia educated european, and barbarian wiev on the mighty america:

• Primaries versus caucus: Always remember this is not the national generel election. It is simply a nomination of a party candidate and selection of delegates to the party convention. Nothing more. So think about how candidates are selected in the parties in your home country. Put very simply. Caucuses are meetings in the local party cell or organisation with all the members electing there delegates to the national convention. Primaries are all the members in the party voting statewide for the delegates to send to convention, much like laborcontracts are voted on in unions in scandinavia (if you know that example :))
• If the delegates are bound, they must legally vote for the candidate for president they have been bound to. If unbound they are free to vote for anyone, but of course the candidates try and in many states succeed in getting their supporters elected, socalled soft pledgeded.
• "between states - seems like even in the two neat categories above things change between every state?" --- Ohh you have no idea. It all changes from state to state, nothing is the same. It is a big country, just think how different the election for the European Parliement is all over Europe. Of course the country is far from that big, but still to compare it helps understand.
• The superdelegates are not elected by the members of the party (or the independent, those that have no party, in some state. Just to confuse you :)) but are party officials. Delegates elected are elected either statewide or in the districts. And if they are unbound or bound, that depends on the local rules. You have to check every time. Party officials are normally unbound and free to vote for anybody - But not in all states.
• "States having reduced numbers of delegates - why would they magically put their date forward? can't the central party force it onto another date?" -- Oh they so wich they could. Imagen that the European People's Party (the conservative party of europe) tried to make the local conservative party do anything? That would be funny to watch. The National Committee of the Republican Party have a bit more power, but still it help to compare. So they punish the state parties or the state goverments that dont follow their plan, but they cant stop them, it is a free country just like Europe.
• "Different sources giving different numbers of delegates (AP, CNN, MSNBC)" Remember that some delegate is unbound, they can pledge themselve to an candidate. And in some states the delegates are elected months after the caucus (see Iowa). So the different numbers are just the medias educated guess. No one know 100 procent what will happen. It can be very complex in some states.
• Of course opinion polls are not official, they are just polls like everywhere else in the world. But it is a big country and a big race, so they matter more than most places in the world. Only one candidate will be left standing in the end so you have to ask yourself: Where should my money go. And withouth contributions, no campaign.
• "is the Republican Party actually a federation of a number of other parties?" --- Yes to both questions. Read the wikipedia article on the republican party. But if you are european just think for a moment. Are the European People's Party one party or many? The two parties really cant be compared, but the thought will help you get started as you read about The Grand Old Party.
• Super Pac = Political action committee. Read the wikipedia article on the subject.
• "It also seems as if there are differences with the Democratic Party" -- Oh man that is a whole different party. Start by learing about the Republican Party and then work your way to the next party. And if you like there is so many more small parties in USA. Have Fun :) :)

It might seem very complex, but isent any political system? Especially from the outside. I dont know where you are from, but just try to explain the complex european political system to a person from USA. And Hi Guys!!! Cut him a bit of slack, I cant count how many times americans have humiliated and belittled my home continent and especially republicans and republican medias paint a hugely negative and wrong picture of it on a daily basis.

User: Jack Bornholm 23:59, 14 January 2012 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Bornholm (talk • contribs)

Thanks Jack - that's exactly what I needed to hear. Now Americans, all I said was that the system seemed impossible to understand, including to the average American - stop being so touchy. And finally, I knew there were articles on these subjects, it's just that they're so dispersed and long it make it an impossible task to grasp the whole thing. But thanks to Jack I do now. One last question though: who can vote? Anyone? Registered party members? Other requirement? 131.251.252.193 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Who can vote depends on the local rules. In some states only partymembers can vote, in others independents can become party affiliated at the door and change back to independent on the way out, in others states they cant. In some states independents can vote freely and in some states voters registrated with other parties can even vote. Primaries are often held by the state for all interested parties (most time that means 2 parties and in a few states 3 parties) and then the local parliements and goverments decides the rules. They can change from presidentiel election to presidentiel election.

The RNC have put out this nice document that sums up the basic rules for this election cycle: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76404080/2012-RNC-Delegate-Summary

Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Huntsman is dropping out

Huntsman is withdrawing from the primary, can someone edit the page to reflect this?

http://www.npr.org/2NPR link1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.184.211 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can one put time when this sinzino drop out? With today precision rounding to one day is lame unprecize, and introduce huge incertainty into our prbabilistic calculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? P.S: Is there a way to restore Perry and Gingrich on the sidebar, or does it have to be a multiple of 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumbersomeCucumber (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I logged over to mention Huntsman throwing support to Romney, and his picture is already moved (well done). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegates vs. Popular Vote

Hi. I noticed someone switched Paul and Santorum around based on some new delegate "estimates." Frankly, I don't think subjective estimates of non-binding delegates should trump the objective fact that Paul has received around 30,000 more votes than Santorum in this election so far. I don't know how to fix this, but could somebody...fix this? CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The actual order doesn't mean that much at this point. The national popular vote totals mean nothing and always have. Wait until sundayEricl (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They were prior ordered by the popular vote estimate--including in the 2008 page (Mitt Romney received 1.3% more of the popular vote but 7 estimated delegates less than Mike Huckabee). I think the order should have Romney, then Paul, then Santorum. --67.248.246.4 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now we are using one source (cnn) for the delegate count, but this is just one networks guess on what will happen in the future. Maybe we should only included the HARD PLEGDE delegates in this spot? Would it be helpful to make a completly new section in the article showing when the delegates will actually be elected. The caucus and nonbinding primaries are important in the election process, but they dont yeld any actually delegates. The Iowa delegates will not be elected before April and June (CD and AL) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight resource

National Polls Suggest Romney Is Overwhelming Favorite for G.O.P. Nomination by Nate Silver January 16, 2012, 3:15 PM

99.35.12.102 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

These statistics must have changed since Santorum now has won the Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. 99.35.15.47 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

election monitoring

Nothing on to election monitoring. Two occurences of string "monitor" are missleading. "важно, это - кто и как будет считать голоса"[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa

Iowa should be striped dark green and orange due to the fact that the Iowa GOP has not declared an official winner and stated that the winner will never be known since the results from 8 precincts have gone missing. As such, Iowa is officially a tie even though Santorum was ahead in the final (incomplete) vote tally. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it can't say that Santorum "won" Iowa, without a certification. Santorum has currently won the "certified precinct total" (see here), but he's not the "certified winner." But I don't think it's "officially" a tie, either. At this point, it's undecided. --Abidjan227 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is officially a tie.(http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/). So the most correct thing to do would to make the state striped - If that is possible at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The current statement from the party official is a "split decision." Maybe that can be considered "tie," but it's also suggestive that they will refuse to declare a winner. I agree, however, that a striped state is the best possible solution among bad solutions. --Abidjan227 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and revert The claim is currently alleged and therefore not verified. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa most definitely should be striped. The Iowa GOP hasn't declared Santorum the official winner, and neither should Wikipedia. 161.253.4.236 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

209.59.107.88 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC) I agree, it's odd that Santorum is being declared the winner on Wikipidea.

As I understand it the official line from the party is that they have certified an incomplete count showing Santorum in the lead but are refusing to declare an outright winner. Whether this is indicated on the map by a striped entry for the state or not I cannot say for certain but it should be made obvious in some way that Santorum's 'win' is not unqualified. Shereth 23:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of tricky. Some reports I have read have even suggested that they may end up calling it an tie officially. 70.77.248.99 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing tricky about it. The Iowa GOP Chairman said this afternoon that Santorum won. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120119/NEWS09/120119015/1007/news05. CNN, AP and NBC's election pages all say Santorum won. This page said Romney won with an uncertified 8 vote load, with no footnote. There is now a larger certified lead for Santorum, and all reliable sources are saying Santorum won, so why does this deserve a footnote? While text in the Iowa section is certainly appropriate, the footnote in the table is misleading, and should be removed. Simon12 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The footnote is in no way misleading. Santorum's win is qualified by the fact that the final certified vote count will never be known. It would in fact be misleading to present his win as unqualified in the same context as other wins that do not share this same uncertainty. Shereth 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I back Shereth here, because it is common sense that a voting record will never be 100% accurate. The idea that some wikipedians can arbitrarily decide to refuse the results of a vigorous and fair recount is ridiculous. Santorum won, and it is only right that a footnote be provided because some readers may look back at the record and find that Romney was declared the winner on election day, and Santorum was declared later. The footnote can provide clarity for readers and is fully warranted.--Screwball23 talk 23:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I put in the footnote, but it looks like it's been removed--and now, rightfully so. The Iowa GOP came out with a statement officially declaring Santorum the winner. No more confusion. --Abidjan227 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs a section running current candidate fundraising totals

This article needs a section running current candidate fundraising totals by quarter and cumulative. Other figures might be helpful also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.230.197 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Candidates in Infobox

I think we should add the two front-running minor candidates (Buddy Roemer and Fred Karger) to the info box. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infobox is for current front-running candidates, and since Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry left, we are short. 72.83.246.44 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) They fail the criteria of being in the infobox, as they have been to no debates. If, at the end of the primaries, they get over 5% of the vote somehow, than the election infobox rule will kick in and they can be added, but unless that unlikely event happens, then no. Thunderstone99 (talk)

Delegate number

The CNN delegate count is unofficial and baseless. It should not be used. Please remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.168.222 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It also, if you follow the link, gives very different numbers than what this article currently shows. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Other sources give different estimates, for example MSNBC gives the count as: Gingrich 23, Romney 18, Santorum 11, Paul 6. With these differing estimates, wouldn't it be wisest to give the count as min. and max. delegates? --89.27.8.236 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would be wisest to count min. & max. delegates.--JayJasper (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That delegate count should be removed - any source that considers there to be "pledged" delegates from Iowa is, by definition, not reliable - even if they are CNN. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We should only have actual delegates number in this article, since Wikipedia is not a news organisation. For now New Hampshire and South Carolina have elected bound delegates for the convention, no more. Some of the 132 RNC delegates have pledge themselve and they can be put in too. But no Iowa delegates are elected and they will be unbound - when they are elected - and can then pledge themselve if they so wish. And since Huntsman technical havent withdrawn, but have suspended his campaign, he still have two bound delegates from New Hampshire - For now!

My point is: This delegate projecting is news more than encyclopidia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If they're showing Iowa numbers, they're wrong, and should not be considered reliable. And the 2 Huntsman delegate should stay with Huntsman. Simon12 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the projected numbers in the Wikipedia table (under Candidates#Major Contenders) we list Gingrich has 28 projected delegates and Romney has 14. But our link to Washington Post (under external links) lists Romney with 33 and Gingrich with 25. FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Parties in the Infobox

This is a minor thing, but: do we really need to list the 'Party' for each candidate in the infobox? Obviously, they're all Republicans... Robofish (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Good point. I second that. 72.83.246.44 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Racial undertone

Is there a racial undertone to the US elections? The lede of the "background" section says that white democrats are starting to vote Republican. This is mentioned in the very 1st paragraph which i initially thought was undue weight, but i prefer input from Americans. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose its true in that they are going from 50% of white voters to 60% of white voters, or whatever the case is.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

AP resource today (Ref. Environmentalists)

Environmentalists see reason for alarm in GOP race by Matt Sedensky for the Associated Press, excerpt ...

Four years after the GOP's rallying cry became "drill, baby, drill," environmental issues have barely registered a blip in this Republican presidential primary. That's likely to change as the race turns to Florida. The candidates' positions on environmental regulation, global warming as well as clean air and water are all but certain to get attention ahead of the Jan. 31 primary in a state where the twin issues of offshore oil drilling and Everglades restoration are considered mandatory topics for discussion. ...

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cf: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Environment . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Gingrich the first candidate shown?

For some reason Gingrich is the first candidate featured in the infobox at the beginning of the article, despite him being behind in delegates and votes to Romney. I know as a fact this isn't supposed to be in alphabetical order, rather by the leading contender, so could someone please change this? - Colonel Broddafi (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the citation, Gingrich has won more delegates than Romney. I made the correction per the source.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much for correcting this, I didn't think there were so many delegates yet. - Colonel Broddafi (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Super Tuesday

There has been a tag on the section Super Tuesday for a day or two (saying it will be removed if no progress is shown in a few days) and so I will add a 'first draft' that is at the top of my ability. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Let's see what you think; are you doing this too? I won't be ready till 8am California time. (1/2 hr).

It's noontime here in sunny California (eight hours ahead of London) and no one has commented here on TALK or changed the paragraph on our Super Tuesday paragraph. In researching, I find excellent information on the Super Tuesday Wikipedia page, and so I tried to summarize and add info of interest today, for the 2012 campaigns of candidates. What do you think? My effort was intended to be good, but only "First Draft". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lynnette (wife) read the paragraphs and say they are "super"! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Senior editors may improve them.

How is the best way to add in other states, at the bottom of the Article, just before Convention ?

I. Pre-Super-Tuesday (Early states); . . . II. Super-Tuesday; . . . Post-Super-Tuesday (Later states) . . . (is one way to arrange the last sections). This has an advantage that after Super Tuesday the Nomination is either obvious, or a 'brokered' convention is in order. I have added seven "pre-Super-Tuesday" states into four new sections, depending on their dates. The other "later states" can be added later, if deemed OK to do so. That is to say, how does everyone want to handle the races in the 57 states?  ;)  :) . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way to list the ‘other early states’ would be ::

=== Other states voting before Super Tuesday ===

Maine (24); Colorado (36); Minnesota (40); Missouri (52);

Arizona (29); Michigan (30); and Washington (43).

And then separate out any state as needed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

frontpage WSJ resource

• Gingrich Leading as Fight Intensifies; Ex-Speaker Fares Worse vs. Obama January 27, 2012 by Neil King Jr.

Also on the 27th, Gingrich, Romney Take Off Gloves; Top GOP Contenders Battle Over Housing in Foreclosure-Torn Florida; Romney Slams Gingrich Ad by Patrick O'Connor and Sara Murray 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

=> Consider also contributing insights at Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What should happen to the time table in the calendar section?

The discussion about the timetable have been kept in 3 different places on the talkpage. I have pasted those 3 different sections together so we can get a coherent discussion

Table

Can we please remove the pointless table under the calender section? Like I said, everything that is in the table can easily be found more than a few times in this article AND on the "results" article. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Primary Schedule' under the 'Calendar section' is good and lets reader jump easily to the state races. It provides an overview of the calendar making this Article of high importance, IMO (in my not-so-humble opinion). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as discussed below, each state can easily be "jumped to" elsewhere (multiple times) in the article. The whole entire article is an overview of the calender. If you want more in depth information, you can easily go to two (and if you count the state pages) or more pages and find detailed information. It is 100% redundant, makes the article messy, unorganized, and will be a major reason why this article will be unable to get to featured status. Honestly, if the table is so important, lets erase everything else but the section before it, and then I will call the table neccessary and not redundant. But then, it will be an article with a table and a paragraph. The table barely contributes to the articles high important status.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Timetable be removed?

The question has been raised if the time table is redundant.

User: 68.39.100.32 have erased it twice with the following two comments as his contribution remark: " like I said, the table is redundant; there is a timeline already under "early states", there is a complete timeline in another article. its completely redundant to leave the table on this page" "the table is COMPLETELY REDUNDANT; we have a whole article devoted to what the table was there for, we have the winners multiple times, we have dates multiple times, and we have the candidates, and results multiple times, its VERY redundant"

I would say it is not redundant. Since this is United States presidential election, 2012 timeline is very comprehensive and it is not easy to get a quick look at the primiary dates. The timeline under "early states" does not cover other than early states. The information on how the delegates are elected in congressional districts or at-large in the state are only displayed in this table. It is true that the winners of eacj state are displayed multiple times in this article. I like to see how the "game" unfoldeds chronological, but maybe these colums should be removed. What do you think about this?

Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the complete timeline of all the contests, early as well as late?

We have this linked multiple times throughout the article. On this page, as time moves forward, the timeline of events will expand.

Where is the info about delegates elected in Congressional Districts and At-Large?

First, you can find the delegate totals and breakdowns, both future and present at the results page. There is no need to have 5 articles devoted to this breakdown, and/or continuing multiple reference discrepancy. Second, the specifics are completely irrelevant to a page that is supposed to give an 'overview' of the election.

What about the winners, etc.?

Look at the infobox, the candidates section, the early states section.

You can put in these information elsewhere or simplify the table and then erase the table.

This information is elsewhere, see above. No need to keep a completely redundant table.

[6] - here is your timeline and delegate breakdowns

68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is redundant. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or just wants to make this editing more inefficient and has way, way too much time on their hands.--Screwball23 talk 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not how things work on Wikipedia. You dont forge a 2-1 opinion on a major part of an article in 9 minutes. This action was brash and your reasoning was curt and insultingly dismissive to many other editors here. I am restoring the table and if you have a problem with it, you can bring up an actual discussion here and wait until a consensus forms. As you can see below and here, there are many supporters of the table. Just because you two think it is redundant and want to take a scimitar to this article does not make it correct.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely untrue. The states are all listed at the very bottom and all the states that have voted are covered with ongoing information. The idea that this is a major part of the article that is so necessary that it needs to be stated 1- time in the campaign developments, 2- times with the navigation box at the bottom, and 3- times with the table, is a huge exaggeration and is undue weight of trivial information easily accessible on the page already. If you can have a discussion explaining why it it is necessary to have information 3 times on the same page, please do. --Screwball23 talk 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Who removed the calendar

Im all cool with cutting down redundancy and article size, but now theres no page where you can easily find all the primaries. I came here today hoping to be able to easily click the Virginia primary. That old table is needed somewhere. Maybe put it on the timeline or make a new page "primary calendar". and sublink it here Thanks :)--Metallurgist (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Look above this section, there is discussion if the time table should be cut or not. The ones that wanted it cut didnt give much time for debate before it was cut Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please bring calendar back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.110 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a new schedule, but maybe a table is better or maybe it will all be gone tomorrow. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks thats good and its still there, but Im going to restore the table. If they want to try to delete it again, they can put it up for discussion instead of acting like rogues.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a page where you can easily find all of the primaries- Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. Which is linked as a see also page for the section. I reverted to the 'less' redundant calender section, though I do wish to remove it altogether. This page is an 'overview' not an all-in-depth-reundancy-extra-detail-tell-all-and-repeat page. If we have another page with the SAME EXACT thing, I find it pointless to have it listed multiple times, AND then have a completely useless table telling us this information... again. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find that the original table (as in have been reinstated) is a very good part of this article. It means I can easy get a view over all the contests and even go in fast way to the different articles on the individual contests. It makes it possible to fast find a state or a date, depending on what you prefer. I dont think it is redudant at all. It is an essentiel part of this general article about the 2012 race. This is the main article from where you go to all the other articles. That is my opinon. I respect that others have another opinion, but I dont respect that some have no respect for the way a consencus are formed and no respect for the other people that have stated their oppionion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack B, Thanks for your work. I think the calendar is great, needed, and more important than reducing the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why its great and why its needed? And why it should take priority over a poorly presented and messy article?68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. The Article looks great with a lot of good content. The Article says it is under revision. It is not necessary to make it look concise until after Super Tuesday, at the earliest. People have put a lot of work in and it should not be tossed out at this point. Major changes here should come with consensus. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. We are editing the article now. This isn't a major change - we are removing a table which is completely redundant. We can get to everything and get the information there throughout the article.Walepher (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we create a box at the bottom of the screen? Nav box I think. That way, all you need to do is scroll down to the "2012 Republican Race - States" box, click on "Alabama" and see the info about Alabama? Or just go to the claender section and click on Results and then click on the states? Both options have the dates... The nav box can be made in chronological order. It's fast too. You have to wait for the page to load to go to either section, your way or my way. We have the states listed at the bottom of the article, we have the winners and delegates in about 2 or 3 maybe more sections, and we have the dates and links to the states in different sections. The whole idea that all of this needs to be in a table is completely undermining the whole idea of separating this information into each state's separate results and information, plus all of the other articles devoted to this ONE election.68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:2012 Republican primaries -- look at that. its already made :D68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why dont we stop being a rogue anonymous editor? Its currently 4-2 against you. Cease and desist removing it unless a consensus is achieved that supports your view. --Metallurgist (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. Please keep the calendar on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The rationale is clearly for its removal. Not only are there links to the results of the state by state primaries, there is a navigation box with all of the states listed. I have not seen a SINGLE reason for its inclusion, and I advise you to stop your editwarring. It is not right to ignore the fact that it is redundant and continue to scream foul while editwarring it back on again and again. Period.--Screwball23 talk 06:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Now we are up to 5-2 and you continue to ignore how Wikipedia works and carry out your own desires. Once again, please STOP reverting or editing until a consensus is formed. You dont delete content and then wait for people to give justification against that. You provide your case, then others, and we talk about it. After a few days, we see what the consensus is and sometimes take a vote. If the dispute continues, a 3rd opinion is brought in. For others, Screwball has been reported. Apparently he is a repeat offender and ignoring consensus, editwarring, and rogue editing are trademarks of his.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we are at a 5-4 concensus so far. Like Screwball previously said, usually when something is so obviously redundant, it is removed without a consensus. There is not many reasons to keep the calender. Like the previous 4 editors suggested, it 'is' completely redundant.Walepher (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is probable cause and proof that this table should be kept, I agree that it should be removed. The evidence that it should be removed is pretty strong, actually. The fact that you insist on denying that, and additionally want a consensus, just proves that you are only interested in preserving something that you want. At the same time, your selfish desires are preventing a page from becoming good and thorough. You haven't presented one shred of evidence that compares to the strong argument the anonymous user has put forward. It doesn't matter if the table is good or looks pretty to your eyes. It looks like these editors have strong feelings to improve this article, whereas you just want to keep it the same. In regards to the editor above who suggested keeping it until Super Tuesday- I am focused on improving this article now. That excuse it similar to the argument of a lazy person who does not wish to get waste his time on a silly argument about a redundant table. I suggest editors on this page remove it promptly.LookinPace (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You say its 5-4 before you two even posted? Sounds like more sockpuppetry or voterigging. It isnt obviously redundant. More people want it than Screwball and his suspected sockpuppet, so it stays until it can be argued out. We cant have discussion and arrive at consensus if a continuously rogue editor keeps reverting the page.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Acually, it isn't automatically not redundant because a consensus is formed. And the point that a few of the editors have pointed out is that you CAN'T argue it. We have had these three sections for about a week and you still haven presented a ligitamate arguement. Saying "Oh, it's not redundant" doesn't hide or rebute the fact that it IS redundant with a fairly solid argument. And I am sorry, but thinking I am a sockpuppet of a user you havent even presented the ip address for is pretty low. If there was a way to report you for jumping to illegitimate conclusions, I would. All that these five editors have brought up is the lack of substance and logic for keeping a table. Without saying "It looks nice", there may be two editors that truly support you. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless you, since you are the primary person on here unsuccessfully making a case, don't provide suggestions, rebute my suggestion and the other four users, I will be removing the table in 24 hours. You seem to be counting everyone that says it should stay but fail to count the ones that have presented clear rebutted to the facts I have presented. It's pretty evident to me at least that there is a strong opinion against the table while you and 4 other people go around saying that it is very good.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the table. I am using it and readers will find it the best source and resource. This is the best article on the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. I tried the suggestion to go to other pages for information, and as noted below, the information is often not correct. The reader finds here in one place all of the state primaries and can sort by date, state, or delegation size, and then click to go to the respective states. What reader will know to go below more than 300 listed references to link to find the calendar? I did and found only seven states listed. Of those, two links did not work and Florida was listed for January 29th not Tuesday January 31st. (I fixed the entry). Lets work on filling out the other state contest pages (they are very slim, especially after Super Tuesday) before tossing the best source. At some time, consolidation and improvements can be made. It is not good to expect Wikipedia readers (and editors) to click through several pages only to find the data is incomplete and wrong. Keep up the good work! . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is also the results page, listing the same exact information. To keep this information simply because a reader can list it differently is not the sole purpose of Wikipedia. In fact, of all of the things on Wikipedia, making a nice, neat, flowing page with bountiful information takes priority over this. I agree, we can add information to the states pages, but having the states pages multiple times is not going to help the situation of trying to get rid of or condense the table.68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

68 you still dont seem to understand how things work here. You dont decide whose opinions "count". And we havent had the opportunity to discuss because you and your cohort keep deleting the table. We have all given some reasoning for why it should be there. Infoboxes are redundant. Lets delete all of them. You cant just invalidate the views of five people because you dont like the view. Thats not how consensus works. Consensus works where theres a concluding opinion, with opponents yielding to the others and accepting their opinions. The fact that we are still firm in our thoughts shows that consensus has not formed. This discussion is to continue until it does, or at some point we bring in a third party. And the reason I provided no IP for Screwball is because I cant trace his IP at my user level.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the table, as per this discussion, it is pretty evident that (now with me) SIX, 6, people would like this table removed. I can serve as the third party. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia at all. Please, Metallurgist, before I -- and possibly others-- report you for insisting on an edit war after denying a consensus, do not just wisk away five other people's strong arguments. I see no reason how this table improves this page at all.46.165.193.133 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been no discussion because certain users keep unilaterally editing major parts of the article. I dont know where you get six from. You are just plain lying. Where did you come from? No one went anywhere to solicit a third party yet. I said above that if no consensus can be reached, THEN a third party is solicited on a project page or admin page. You havent been very active on Wikipedia, so you dont know how things work, or what articles should look like, that doesnt make you a good third opinion. Ill give you credit for trying Screwball, but its getting pretty obvious with your continual disregard for Wikipedia policy now and in the past and your record.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think the editor miscounted... It's 5 to 4, not 6 to 5. But there has been discussion for a week. Unfortunately, all you have done is said that the sky is black when I give pretty solid evidence that the sky is blue. And actually, how is that user's opinion bad? It looks like he has been editing for the past month. It doesn't look like he has done anything bad.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There has not been discussion for a week. There was 9 minutes between suspected sockpuppets and a unilateral edit. Then complaints, then an edit war, then a report. There has never been a chance to discuss it. If you and your cohorts had just let it be and allow us all to discuss it, maybe it would have reached some consensus by now. But ye chose to repeatedly disregard Wikipedia policies. And now Im just waiting for administrative action. I left the page unreverted as it was getting frustrating to deal with ye and I want to conserve Wikipedia resources. So dont take it as a surrender. It isnt.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But the thing is, you have had plenty of time to explain why it should be left in the article. You just choose not to. Every time.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE WP:LISTN WP:NOT WP:WHENTABLE: There some articles to take a look at while you wait for administrative action.68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually both sides have explained themselve. But it looks to me like not all want to hear what is said. Just because one part finds it redudant doesnt mean it is. Others, including me, have mention how they find it usefull. So dont belittle the other editors. Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

People have mentioned how they have find it useful. I responded. They did not. I mean, I understand if you don't post because you cant respond to what I said, but with this constant arguement that Metal is persisting on, I would expect to have a very clear and precise arguement similar to what I have laid out with strong facts to back it.68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading all the parts of the discussion, not just fighting wiht Metalurgist? I think mr. Charles Edwin Shipp have a really good point just above. As a responds to something you said actually. I understand that you think it will be more easy to find the informations if they are spread out in the different state race articles. But some of us find it nice to have a central table where it is possible to see the big picture. Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise: Lets remove the colums Winner, second and third since these informations are elsewhere in the article. In that way there will still be a easy to handle table where one can get a view of the whole primary scedule in a fast way in this article. (I think we should keep the information about the different kinds of delegates in the states. No where else is a composite of how all the states have chosen to distribute their delegates. A colum about winner take all contra proportionel could be added. These information are very important to the race, especially if it will be a long one. And they should be in some form in this articel so everyone can see the connections for themselve. Not simply spread out in the different state contests sections.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be an easy to read table of primary dates. The winner information can easily be found in multiple areas in the article, but locating primary date information for all the states is very inconvenient without the table. Rxguy (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a calendar. The state by state coverage is already there, as well as the navigation box, and a link to the Results of all the state by state contests in order. The table is way too redundant considering how well-covered the information is on linked pages. I'm also insulted by the immaturity of Metallurgist here, who has completely beat around the bush when asked to give a logical rationale. Instead he has resorted to some accusations of sockpuppetry to try to spin around his dismal case; the facts are, consensus is not on his side and he knows it.--Screwball23 talk 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundant or not is a matter of opinion, but it is actually a calendar of the contests no matter what stand you take. And the argument of RXguy is that the all the good information you mentioned is not gathered in a few lines as this calendar. Instead of personal fights, what would you say to the compromise? Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By your logic, we shouldnt have the infobox at top either. The info is there after all. But in actuality, its not there. Thats why we want the table, so we can find this info quickly and easily. I have not been immature at all. I have not resorted to insults or anything. You have dismissed our opinions, been very rude, disregarded the standards Wikipedia uses, etc. You were clearly editwarring, so thats that. Then you appear to have engaged in sockpuppetry as well, so I reported that. Was it with prejudice? Yes, because you were viciously disrupting this article and talkpage with your actions and have a long history of similar actions. There has been no consensus, once again, because you and Screwball never allowed one to take place. I took action before there even was much discussion because of the rogue editing. So you cant say I lost when the discussion barely even took place. I clearly dont know I lost if 5 people back me up and have the same opinion.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Metallurgist, I left a note on your TALK page; then I went to the talk page of Anonymous-68 and left this message for him or her:

SUBJECT: Words between Alice (in Wonderland) and the Cheshire Cat: "Who . . . are . . . you ? "

Sign in as a real person to be respected as an editor. .!. . . . Respectfully, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

Okay... So, going along with Jack's idea, can we please compromise? This is honestly getting annoying. I have a suggestion that should satisfy everyone. This version is good. It isn't messy and it gets rid of the whole table aspect. It is also pretty less redundant. And I know Jack, that you mention that we should have the delegates there, but I say, maybe someone could put them next to the states? Have a note at the top of the sections explaining what they are. I don;t think we should go into detail about the super delegates, the projected, and pledged, ext. If we want to do detail of that sort, we should leave it to the results page and/or the individual states page. Here is an example of what I am talking about: Alabama (20) Can we have opinions on this please? :)68.39.100.32 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly dont see any reason to compromise or negotiate with someone who editwars, is rude, ignores Wikipedia policy, and almost certainly is a sockpuppet. Why dont you stop obsessing over something that many people like being there and doesnt in anyway detract from the article and go on to more productive editing? Youre not going to lose any face or respect by this since you already lost our respect with your shenanigans. That compromise isnt a compromise. Its pointless. I really suggest you go talk to the infobox people and tell them that their templates are redundant because people can just scroll down and click around.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the section that is suggested as a compromise. Please dont bring that back. The Table is much better because it is possible to sort it the way you need. If you want to find a state you sort it this way, if you want to find a date your sort it that way.

I made the suggested section after the table had been removed several times and, at least I felt so, there had been very unkind and harsh language and arbitary removal of my (among others) work. I felt like leaving this page for good, but then others ask for the information back and I felt I should use my new knowledge to give them at least something.

I dont have a problem, I can find my information in other websites. As an european I got intrigued by your (americans) democratic system during this election cycle. Quit frankly for an ignorant european it seems very strange, very old and do I dare to say almost undemocratic. But as I learn more about the whole system works and how diverse american must be I got another wiev on the matter. I have visited New York several times (passing by on bussiness in Caribia or South America), but now I really hope to take a roadtrip through US sometime.

Sorry I got away from the point. Please dont replace the table with my half done work. Keep the table. It can be shorten down to 2 colums (dates and states) or 3 colums (delegates) or 4 (a new colum on the sort of contest, winner take all versus others). I vote for 4 colums, but I will go anyway the consensus goes. Just dont replace the table with my sorry work. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That puts a whole new spin on uncooperative.... I'm actually obsessing over the fact that we can IMPROVE something. With your response, it is painfully obvious you don't want to improve anything. Arrogance.... Although you are unwilling to compromise and find common ground, I am sure many editors on here are. But Jack, the whole point I, and many others, are trying to make, is that a table on this page is messy. The format you suggested before is good- its neat, it has the information there. Why just focus on arranging the information by pressing a few buttons?68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but before I started to know many or the state contest better this fact, that I could get information by pressing a few buttoms was very important to me. And I think it still is to my fellow europeans. If we make the table slimmer i cant split it in two next to each other (two big colums with the whole table in so to speak). Then it will look less messy. I think my arrangement makes the article look messy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding to that- why do people need to sort it at the state or date level? Alphabetical, date. All of the states are there. The Navbox has the states in Alphabetical order. The schedule doesn't need to appease those people. The date should be in order - reverse or not it is there that way. If they want it in a random order, the Navbox has it Alphabetically. The delegates should be next to the states. I don't see why we have to sacrifice neatness for sorting 'delegates'. That's just silly IMO. 68.39.100.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Jack, the way you did it made it look 90% neater than it currently is. It got rid of 80% of the redundancy this table currently has, too.68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well personally I like all the redundant stuff :) :). But lets hear what other editors mean about this, and the we can get a compromise before we know it. So please give your voice to this Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What do you think of the first few states I have played around with here?68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that it needs the first 4 columns at least: Date, State, Type, and Delegates. Having the winner column is also nice but for the sake of making a neater table removing the second and third place columns would be alright. For those interested, we will not have to put up with Screwball23, aka 68.39.100.32's other account as he was just blocked for 1 month for repeatedly edit warring. Rxguy (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hay I like the table as it is, I would even consider adding a colum with the kind of delegate "distribution" (winner takes all/proportional/state convention/ect) if the work isent going to be thrown out. But if someone wants an neater table I can understand that. (But I have been looking at the article, and the so much discussed table is followed by another table in the next section just as wide. Maybe it look more messy on other computers than this one) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing against having wide tables. I edit this page mostly, United States Senate elections, 2012, and there are 2 very large tables there, one multiple times larger than this one, and editors don't seem to have any problem with it so it't not like this is a unique situation. These tables provide a concise source of information that is convenient for viewers. I like the idea of adding a column showing how delegates are allotted, but I just don't know how messy that could get since some states have winner take all "pledged" delegates and "unpledged" delegates at the same time. Rxguy (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But a table is not necessary in this article. There are always other ways to approach it. Even a Wikipedia article says to limit the use of tables. The delegates are not needed (in this calender section), nor are the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishers. I would also try to get around from listing the type. Thus I don't see a need for a formal table. Maybe someone can fool around with this on a sandbox? I wouldn't even mind putting the table on another page, such as the already made caldener page as suggested here User talk:Metallurgist.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is all we need:

Template:Multicol January 3

• Iowa (nonbinding) caucus, 25 delegates

January 10

• New Hampshire (modified) primary, 12 delegates

January 21

• South Carolina (open) primary, 25 delegates

January 31

• Florida (closed) primary, 50 delegates

February 4

• Nevada (binding) caucus, 28 delegates

February 4–11

• Maine (nonbinding) caucus, 24 delegates

February 7

• Colorado (nonbinding) caucus, 36 delegates
• Minnesota (nonbinding) caucus, 40 delegates
• Missouri (nonbinding) primary, 52 delegates

February 28

• Arizona (closed) primary, 29 delegates
• Michigan (closed) primary, 30 delegates

March 3

• Washington (nonbinding) caucus, 43 delegates

Template:Multicol-break March 6 (Super Tuesday)

• Alaska (binding) caucus, 27 delegates
• Georgia (modified) primary, 76 delegates
• Idaho (binding) caucus, 32 delegates
• Massachusetts (modified) primary, 41 delegates
• North Dakota (binding) caucus, 28 delegates
• Ohio (modified) primary, 66 delegates
• Oklahoma (closed) primary, 43 delegates
• Tennessee (open) primary, 58 delegates
• Vermont (open) primary, 17 delegates
• Virginia (open) primary, 49 delegates

March 6-10

• Wyoming (binding) caucus, 29 delegates

March 10

• Kansas (binding) caucus, 40 delegates
• U.S. Virgin Islands (binding) caucus, 9 delegates

March 13

• Alabama (open) primary, 50 delegates
• Hawaii (binding) caucus, 20 delegates
• Mississippi (open) primary, 40 delegates
• American Samoa caucus, 9 delegates

March 17

• Missouri (binding) caucus, 52 delegates

Template:Multicol-break March 18

• Puerto Rico (open) primary, 23 delegates

March 20

• Illinois (open) primary, 69 delegates

March 24

• Louisiana (closed) primary, 46 delegates

April 3

• District of Columbia (closed) primary, 19 delegates
• Maryland (closed) primary, 37 delegates
• Texas (open) primary, 155 delegates
• Wisconsin (open) primary, 42 delegates

April 24

• Connecticut (closed) primary, 28 delegates
• Delaware (closed) primary, 17 delegates
• New York (closed) primary, 95 delegates
• Pennsylvania (closed) primary, 72 delegates
• Rhode Island (modified) primary, 19 delegates

May 8

• Indiana (open) primary, 46 delegates
• North Carolina (modified) primary, 55 delegates
• West Virginia (modified) primary, 31 delegates

Template:Multicol-break May 15

• Nebraska (nonbinding) primary, 35 delegates
• Oregon (closed) primary, 28 delegates

May 22

• Arkansas (open) primary, 36 delegates
• Kentucky (closed) primary, 45 delegates

June 5

• California (closed) primary, 172 delegates
• Montana (nonbinding) primary, 26 delegates
• New Jersey (modified) primary, 50 delegates
• New Mexico (closed) primary, 23 delegates
• South Dakota (closed) primary, 28 delegates

June 14-16

• Montana caucus, 26 delegates

June 26

• Utah (modified) primary, 40 delegates

July 14

• Nebraska (binding) caucus

Date to be determined

• Guam, 9 delegates
• Northern Mariana Islands

This lists the: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) It gets rid of: 1st, 2nd, 3rd place finishers and the detailed delegate breakdowns; it makes it neater and simpler and is not too big; it gets rid of the table (things I, and other users, do not want)

First, let's wait for the result of the sock-puppet investigation before you say there are "others" as it appears that those "others" don't really count. Right now you are the only one arguing for this with three editors opposed to it. And how is that any better? That takes up just as much space and is not clean and neat like a table. Rxguy (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know where you get this idea that the table looks messy. It looks very neat, organized, and concise—exactly what a table is supposed to look like. Instead you want to replace it with a hideous, jumbled mess that Jack designed desperately to get the info back. You keep bringing up this nonsense claim of redundancy. I dont see whats redundant about it because we cant get that information anywhere else in an organized fashion. And again, why dont you complain about infoboxes. Those are definitely redundant. The table is fine, looks nice with the article, and you and a deluge of accounts suddenly appear to coincidentally agree at the same time. I honestly am beginning to think you are just here to stir up trouble (vandalism) because your argument makes absolutely no sense, especially claiming the columns above are neater and less messy.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I put in a new TABLE. Made it simpler. And I am 'compromising'.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, how about you wait until we agree to it. If you are not going to follow the principles of consensus, go make your own encyclopedia.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Honestly, this is all we need" work listed just now looks great, neat, concise, and since there are only 50 states, you can see any state readily. FYI, the current replacement (like the excellent table before, but wrapping in two, does not sort properly at all: not by delegation size and not by state. It cannot remain. . . . Keep up the good work! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The sole function of a table is to make things neat, organized, and easy to read. The work posted here is an utter mess compared to the table and does not look professional. Keep the original table, tweak it if needed, but don't use the one split in two as it has the problems mentioned. Rxguy (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And still I question why we even have anything there at all....68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, that doesnt seem to be the point, as I have made the case for a Compromise. Now that it seems we are getting somewhere with the list, I say: The list it must be! :D In all honesty, besides keeping the table to use to sort, why should we keep it over the list? The list is way nearer than the table (I really wouldn't be suggesting it otherwise)..68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, now we have sockpuppets and meatpuppets giving opinions. This is becoming very productive. Rxguy (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How is he/she a meat puppet and a sockpuppet? The excuses you guys come up with....68.39.100.32 (talk) 04

30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Screwball23, possibly you pending the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, and his other accounts were commenting earlier in this section, those are sockpuppets. A meatpuppet is someone who is recruited to the conversation to support your position. Did you not post to Lolthatswonderful's talk page specifically for him to join you? Rxguy (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I, not Screwball, posted on his talk page to join the conversation. I did that because according to WP:CAN, it is acceptable to have someone join when they have been editing the page. It's acceptable to do that as long as I don't pursuade or try to pursuafe the user. The invite i posted looks pretty genetic to me. He could have said I suck and shouldnt be on this earth for all I knew.68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to you as the recruiter of the meatpuppet. Out of all the frequent editors to this article you singled out one person to invite to this discussion. That would lead me to believe that you knew this user or his viewpoint beforehand, otherwise you would extend the invitation to many editors. This is considered vote-stacking and is an inappropriate form of canvassing. Rxguy (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This guy has to be a troll. "The table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better." How does that make sense to any reasonable, sane human? A jumbled mess is orderly, but a nice neat table is redundant and ugly. Weve all been had guys. This guy is having the laughter of his life at our expense. He just has to be a troll. And how is it redundant anyway? You havent really explained that, especially since the infobox is also redundant. Actually Wikipedia is redundant. All the sources are out there.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't just that guy who has said that. And you are really taking this out of proportion. I have explained how it is redundant. Many times actually. The list is 'less' redundant. I have just tried to argue to remove it. But since you are incapable of seeing reason, I decided to try and compromise. But since you are incapable of that, I have reached out to a few editors in the most generic way possible in order for them to give their opinion without you sugar-coating everything.68.39.100.32 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

A number of editors have expressed concern with the table that is currently in the article. At the same time, just as many editors feel the table is good. We are unable to come up with a compromise. Should the table stay or be removed or replaced?11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did this comment get erased (as far as I can see by anonumyse user: 68.39.100.32) Some technical reason, a mistake or have I simply overlooked something?

"Hello, sorry I don't know the format for commenting. I am a political consultant and campaign operative, and I depend on this Wikipedia page to have that table. It is the most convenient source of information as to the sequence, concurrency, delegate value, prop/takeall, etc. The list looks like a mess. The table is easier to read. I can't believe the conversation I have just read above. None of you know me, I seldom comment or edit. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.246.194 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think this man have as much right to speak as anyone else 85.83.95.235 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegates listed do NOT match the source that is cited

This needs to be fixed. If you want to use a different source, PLEASE change the source that is cited. The source that is currently cited in the infobox shows Romney 14 Paul 10 Gingrich 25 Santorum 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.226.177 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for an discussion about the delegate count. How do we want it to be? Do we want it to show how it most properable are going to be (projected) and if so how do we find reliable sources that agrees? Or do we want to only list the delegates that have been bound or/and delclared themselve for a candidate?

This will be a bigger and bigger problem as the election develop, especially if it is not going to be decided early. Let me explain why. There is 132 RNC delegates that are free to vote for anyone they like (some have already declared themselve) and there is delegates that are unbound, they may endorse if they like - in theory. In many "nonbinding" races the candidates try to get there supporter elected to the state and district convention where the National Delegates are eleceted.

Iowa is a fine example of the problem, reliable newsmedia project the delegate count very different. Why? Because it might not be as straight forward as the result of the caucus says. If one candidates supporters are able to corner a district in Iowa they may get more votes at the state convention meaning more AL delegates, and they may take all the CD delegates in that district too. So the truth is that no one knows where Iowa will go. If the contest is over early it doesnt really matter, but if it will be a race run to the end all these nonbinding caucuses and their following conventions may be important. And they all have local rules and in some of the the state convention even makes up the rules as they go along.

So what do you think? Would it be a good idea to take the discussion now and make a policy about the delegate count?

Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The delegates listed should be those that are actually pledged to the candidate, with a note stating that certain delegates (all from Iowa, some from other states) are not pledged to any candidate. To the extent that actual unpledged delegates (actual individuals, that is, not "projected delegates") commit to voting for a candidate, they can be included in the numbers as well. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and make these changes later today; if there is an objection, I will still at least remove the current numbers, as they are clearly incorrect and misleading.

On another note, this seems to be a systemic problem in our articles - the Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries tries to fix this by distinguishing between "projected" and "pledged" delegates in its table, but inaccurately includes unpledged delegates in its "pledged" totals. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't do this after all. I obviously didn't want to rely on CNN/MSNBC/Fox's delegate totals for results for other states, since they are clearly wrong about Iowa. But finding reliable sources for other state results is turning out to be just a bit difficult - I found sources for how the delegates are awarded - proportional for NH and eleven winner-take-all + 2/congressional district for SC. But finding sources applying those rules (or straight out numbers so we can apply them) is going to take some time. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This link might help: http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list It is a blog though, and a democratic party blog (even worse I guess :). But maybe it will lead to something. I find it very sober and right on the money Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though it is a blog, the names link to sources for the superdelegates. Most seem to be Romney's site claiming their endorsement, but some link to local news articles. Rxguy (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DemConWatch is not a Democratic Party blog, but yes, it is run by Democrats. However, this blog was considered Wikipedia's "reliable source" for all superdelegate information in 2008, and I think is worthy of that again. See here. Their superdelegate policy is very simple but strict - a reliable published source of the endorsement must be available. When it comes to a list like this, they are totally transparent in their work, and I think should be again trusted and used as Wikipedia's source for this information.Simon12 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not all sources run by partisan groups are inherently partisan and after looking at the site again it does seem to have a strict set of criteria to ensure reliability. I vote for using it for the superdelegate counts. Rxguy (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about Huntsman?

The sources are pretty much unanimous that Huntsman won 2 delegates in New Hampshire before he dropped out. So the question is: should all candidates who won delegates be in the infobox or just those who are actively running for the nomination? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to include all those who won delegates.--JayJasper (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The case with Huntsman is interesting. Because he dropped out before the official result had arrived, and before the delegates was (is?) actually picked. If he had really withdrawn he would not get the delegate, but.... He has actually "only" suspended his campaign. A difference that mostly have to do with campaign contribution rules. So if it stays this way legally he would carry the two delegates to the first ballot at the national convention. Not that it would count for anything, but still interesting Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think until the Huntsman delegates are identified and confirmed to be supporting another candidate, there's no reason to move them from his count. Simon12 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think just those in the running until there is a top three like in 2008, and then go with those.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, Metal.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Brought up before, but unanswered

This was brought up before but went unanswered. Why is the article in past tense? There are sections in this article that make it sound as if candidates who are still in the race, are no longer in the race., or sentences make it sound as if the race is over. For example, header section second paragraph last sentence, it sounds as if both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are no longer in the race as it says they "also ran in 2012". This should be in present tense as they are currently still running. There's other spots in this article as well.

Also, with the info box at the top of the page showing the candidates, their delegates, what state their from, etc., there's no need to have "Party" on there as they're all Republicans running as Republicans in Republican primaries. JDC808 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points—tense should be changed as time rolls on. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Feel free to edit.

It can technically go either way. I think I tend towards past unless that sounds weird.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a request some time ago to keep the language more encyklopidic and less "news". Maybe the tense problem is a part of it. Then the article can stand the test of time without further work. But of course the best is the right tense and then remember to change it all the time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)