Template talk:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Duncan Hunter[edit]

DH has withdrawn with 1 pledged delegate, as yet he hasn't asked it to go to anyone. When he does how do we note it?--mitrebox (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually he has already endorsed Huckabee, so maybe that delegate should be noted under Huckabee's section with a footnote that says one of the delegates was from Duncan. DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly discourage awarding delegates of withdrawn candidates to other candidates. A pledge to Dunc is not a pledge to Dunc's endorsement. It appears that the delegate has been stripped from CNN's and our lists, which is probably proper, except ... John J. Bulten (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani[edit]

Since Hunter and Thompson have received delegates as well as Giuliani, shouldn't Giuliani's two be stripped just as the others' were? Or should the other delegates be restored to this list so their effect can be appreciated, i.e., the fact that they find themselves suddenly unpledged but with a former affiliation? It seems the only reason CNN still gives Rudy delegates is that they are refusing to report his withdrawal from the race yesterday. Since there is no question about Rudy being out, it seems all three withdrawn delegate groups should be treated alike. This is just my initial take on this page. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how delegates are handled by the GOP, but the reason that Hunter and Thompson have "0" delegates now is that the source tells us that. I know they had more but I can't prove it. Of course CNN gives Giuliani 2 on one page and 1 on another.--mitrebox (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mitre, a few days ago the same source itself was telling us they had the delegates. We don't need to follow the source blindly in deleting them when common sense and GOP rules indicate the deletion was solely due to candidate withdrawal, especially when the source was notably late in announcing Rudy's departure, and safely presumably late in decommissioning his 2 delegates (they do list 2 consistently). Sources can be found stating Thompson 8 Hunter 1 even if CNN no longer states this. On a quick search, here Thompson is credited with 8 or even 11; here is Hunter. So the question for the editors is: shall we list and source Thompson 8 Hunter 1 Giuliani 2, so as to identify the "formerly pledged" delegates, or zero them all and throw the former pledges back into the great unwashed? There is more than one way to count them, which way is most neutral and verifiable? Citing a repeatedly inconsistent source is not the answer in the face of additional sources. CNN and NYX are not the only delegate counters. Put another way, as others drop out, will we zero their totals immediately, or hold them? I think holding is preferable to deleting. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of whatever the GOP rules are with delegates. I know on the Dem side Edwards keeps his delegtes because he's Suspended and not Withdrawn but whatever we do we need to have a small handful of easily verifiable sources (preferably 1 or 2)--mitrebox (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually it looks like there is much more discussion here which I am only now digesting. We might be better moving there. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not partial to any of the sources as they are all guesses until the national convention is held. Realistically there isn't a difference between which guesses we use on this template, but it is probably best if we stay consistent with the Results article and they seem to be going with CNN and NYT at this point in time. We could probably do a better job of listing which source the data in a column comes from. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Source choices[edit]

RCP gives oddly different counts from CNN in IA, WY, MI, NV. Reliable Politics uses the NYX method mostly but gets slightly higher counts for 3 candidates. There are probably more. Seems to me that the GOP rules are complex enough, and the differences of opinion hard enough to resolve, that a major overhaul of the idea might be called for. This is as bad as counting endorsements. How could we reliably and verifiably tell the WP audience that "the" delegate count is thus-and-so without clear, hard-and-fast rules as to what delegates are IN or OUT? We have a hard enough time telling which -candidates- are in or out! Perhaps we should merely list one column per source, credit each source, and let the users draw their own conclusions, rather than imply the delegates are definitely counted according to repeatable rules. The rules are nothing more than "the source counted them this way", it seems. Doesn't sound like the best route for WP. Better ideas? John J. Bulten (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes[edit]

Perhaps we should delete Keyes until he gets a delegate like the rest have? John J. Bulten (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Keyes has any delegates is immaterial for inclusion. It's really up to whether or not he is a national candidate or not. He doesn't get any media coverage, but he does appear to be on a smattering of the ballots. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is irrelevant who has a national campaign and who has not. I could claim to have a national campaign. Relevant is only who is anotable candidate. CuriousOliver (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your scenario is that you are a nobody and Keyes has been notable for decades. He was a nationally known name, UN ambassador and author before anyone knew who Mike Huckabee was. He filed with the FEC and is on the ballot of more than 20 states. You're simply a vandal at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest this template be restricted to candidates with delegates. Adding candidates without delegates only increases space without offering any improvement to the template itself. --Barinade2151 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that one extra line makes a HUGE difference. The man has received thousands of votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The point of this template is to track the status and delegate counts of the national candidates. Whether or not they have a delegate is immaterial. --Bobblehead (rants) 08:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This obsession with whether or not Keyes has won delegates is not logical. The race isn't over. He is a declared candidate, notable for reasons aside from the current campaign. No, he doesn't have a chance of winning, but Paul can't possibly win at this point either and nobody is removing him. If we're going to remove Keyes based on delegate numbers and mathamatical chances of winning, then I submit that we remove Paul too and leave up only McCain and Huckabee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Keyes from the table because he doesn't have any delegates, but I'm not going around removing him from the various candidacy type pages. I think a fair compromise would be to keep him listed in articles as a Republican candidate, but leave him off the table until he wins delegates. Adding him at that point won't be a problem, and since the Republican table was redone yesterday, there aren't any other 0 delegate candidates listed anymore. --Bark (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maine[edit]

So how does Maine affect the numbers? [1]Bytebear (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point they don't mean anything. Once the sources have been updated with some numbers, then the win will mean something. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed[edit]

It appears I will not be able to contribute significantly to this template and am taking it off my watchlist. Aside from the question of whether it duplicates content needlessly, the essential question of how we can trust our totals is completely unresolved and unlikely to be sorted out quickly through consensus. Maybe next time. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Should withdrawn candidates really be included?[edit]

I understand keeping Romney listed, because his campaign is only "suspended" and his delegates are still bound, but what is the use in listing Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson. They did gain delegates, but they are all officially withdrawn and no longer have any pledged delegates. This just seems like a waste of space in my opinion. Rtr10 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries_delegate_counts#Criteria_for_Inclusion_in_Template. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really discuss what I am talking about. It is talking about Gravel and Keyes. I am not worried about Alan Keyes, it just seems silly to have people listed who do not have delegates and WILL NOT receive any delegates. Keyes could still get delegates, probably won't, but could. Giuliani, Hunter and Thompson will not receive any delegates, no matter what, because they are no longer candidates. See what I am getting towards?Rtr10 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My response to that question is the same as this one. The point of the template is to show the delegate count and status of all the national campaigns for a given party. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with you, but I still don't think you see what I am talking about. Giuliani, Hunter and Thompson do not have presidential campaigns and do not hold delegates. Why should we list them and black out their names? If we are going to list every campaign national campaign, that opens up another 10 some odd candidates that would need to be listed. In my opinion, there is no logical reason to include Giuliani, Hunter and Thompson only to black out their names. It just doesn't make any sense. Rtr10 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
They are listed because they were national candidates during the primaries. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so it would be odd to not include the people that dropped out of the race. (Granted, there was a decision to not include the candidates that dropped out prior to the primaries taking place.)--Bobblehead (rants) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Where was there a "decision" made? I have looked on all of the discussion pages and cannot find where this has been discussed and definitely haven't seen any kind of consensus or decision. I know you created this template and really appreciate your work in creating it, but with all due respect, this is something that should be put up for discussion with other editors to try and reach a consensus. I don't think any single editor, you or me know what is the absolute best thing. Rtr10 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I created the template based off of the Overview of results section on the Republican Party presidential primaries results article and aside from the table being re-ordered so the active and inactive are grouped, that relationship has pretty much been maintained. Well, if you ignore the edit war over Alan Keyes, that is. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Only Candidates that currently have delegates according to the sources listed should be included. Including other numbers or candidates would require that we accept other sources, that decision should be brought forward to the talk page and agreed upon prior to changes to the template.--207.235.64.30 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The best course of action is probably to maintain consistency with the sources that are used on the template. Currently the source is CNN for the second, third, and fourth columns and, thanks to your removal of Alan Keyes, the template currently matches the list found on CNN. If y'all would like to use a different source than CNN, then by all means we can modify the template to match that source. Good catch on Alan Keyes, btw, him not being on any of the sources really should have been noticed earlier.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should definitely consider switching to RealClearPolitics.com's Delegate Count it is actually a combination of AP, CBS, ABC, NBC & RCP, rather than just one single news service and it seems to be more accurate when looking at the breakdown with the states, compared to CNN. Just a thought. Rtr10 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:2008_Republican_presidential_primaries_delegate_counts_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.2.187 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can't reach a clear consensus on including or excluding Alan Keyes, I'd like to suggest requesting arbitration. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean request for comment not arbitration. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. They generally do not accept cases where no other attempts at dispute resolution have taken place and will not actually resolve a content dispute, but will only look at user conduct. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. There are anonymous users in the same IP range just going from one article to the other, removing Keyes info and forcing a 3R situation. If you look at their contributions, you see these are the only articles they log on to edit and more than one have IP's that are very close and come back to the same ISP. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I'm aware that the two IP addresses are more than likely the same user, particularly since they are using the virtually the same edit summaries, but at this point, they haven't violated in policies. You also need to get over your whole complex about named users being superior to IP addresses. Each type should be treated equally in regards to wikipolicy. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
My bad.. They just made their fourth revert. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2 < 3 But hey whois counting. Anywho, IP's are actually superior to named editors. I can prove I'm not editing on behalf of the Dept of Energy, FBI, or the Hillary Campaign. You can't. (See http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker) According to Jimbo (WP:VER) unsourced statements and improperly sourced statements should be actively removed. Long live the Jimbo --68.209.2.187 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, frankly, I don't really care whether Alan Keyes is on the template or not, but it's apparent that some people do. edit warring is never acceptable, particularly if there is very little discussion happening on the talk page. How about y'all try to discuss rather than simply reverting each other. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "registered are superior" thing. But anonymous users know that they are less likely to be blocked. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They aren't less likely to be blocked, they are just more likely to get shorter blocks. Or atleast not banned indefinitely. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Objection your honor!, How can the witness profess to know what the anonymous users of the world know? That is unless HE IS ANONYMOUS!!! <Collective Gasp>!!! But aren't we a little off topic here. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I attended the last meeting of anonymous editors. In any case, it's nearly impossible to take the discussion to their talk page, since it changes constantly and this particular editor has already shown a history of trolling on mine. I'll just let ignorance prevail. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it looks like you have the last word here. Congratulation's. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

thegreenpapers.com[edit]

Well, I don't care if Keyes is included or not, but thegreenpapers.com has this disclaimer on the main page. "'The Green Papers' is offered solely as an information service only and any and all data found within this site is not intended to replace any official versions of that same information." Basically, I read that to say, "don't use us as an official source." Consequently, I'm going to remove it, which means I'm removing Keyes. However like I said, I don't care one way or the other, but I can't in good conscious keep this source around after that. --Bark (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I'm of the opinion that we should focus not on the candidates on these templates, but on the delegates and who they're committed to. It's simpler. That would mean active zero delegate candidates are off and inactive candidates who have won delegates are on. That's effectively what the current revision shows here, and I've proposed the same be done on the Democratic template too. --Bark (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with the decision to remove. That was not a credible source in my opinion and the person who added it was just doing it to include Keyes. He is not listed in any of our sources. Rtr10 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain hasn't clinched it[edit]

Rtr10 wrote: McCain has secured the nomination, there is no possible scenario that McCain could be blocked from the nomination.

That's both POV and OR. McCain doesn't have the pledged delegates. A large number of the delegates are unpledged, and Ron Paul has not dropped out of the race. CNN can call it for whoever they want, but they don't really get to decide.

It's enough to note how many delegates he has without inserting conclusions into the template based on the likeliness or unlikeliness of an upset. It's over when it's over. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect. He has clinched the nomination. That statement isn't OR or POV. Reputable, mainstream sources include CNN, AP via Yahoo!, Fox News, and BBC News. Included:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/march.4.contests/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_137
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/obama-mccain-win-vermont-primary/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7279069.stm
So please provide reputable, mainstream sources for your position. Otherwise, the argument could be made that your edits are POV and OR. --Bark (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, Wikipedia's main page is saying McCain secured the nomination. The race is over.--Bark (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. The New York Times has a delegate count up. Unless you can bring some evidence that the nomination is determined by the announcements of the press, as opposed to the documented rules of the Republican Party, sources, even otherwise reputable, mainstream sources, do not trump those rules.
When McCain has enough pledged delegates, you can say that the race is over. Not until then. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Everyone says he clinched it, including Wikipedia. Be advised. You have reverted the edit three times in 24 hours. Any further reversions will be a violation of 3R.--Bark (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the Ron Paul supporter's opinion, McCain is only the presumptive nominee for the Republican candidate for President until the Republican National Convention. While it is highly unlikely that McCain will not be the Republican candidate, delegates are not required to vote for the person they are pledged to and there have been a number of instances where they have not. That's not to say it will happen this time around, but the only way that any candidate can secure the nomination is if they are confirmed by their party's national convention. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we're getting into the weeds of semantics here. However firstly, Some states (but not all) do require delegates to vote the way it went down in that state's primary, no exceptions. Anyway, that's a muddled mess. I'm still trying to figure out why territories get to vote in the primaries and not vote in the general election.
"Secured nomination" to me equals "Presumptive Nominee." When the convention comes around, both would change into "Nominee". So, McCain has "secured the nomination" now to become the "presumptive nominee" and at the convention, he will be "nominated" to become the "nominee". See what I'm saying? Anyhow, the wording of "Presumptive Nominee" is fine by me. As I said, to me it means the same thing.--Bark (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul's Status[edit]

I think we should hold off saying Paul has withdrawn. While a couple places say his campaign is over, others say it's just winding down. I don't think he's formally declared withdrawal, however. Until he does, he shouldn't be marked as such. Buspar (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that he has neither withdrawn nor "suspended" his campaign the way Romney did. He said in his video that "conventional victory" is not attainable at the current time. That's it. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad someone agrees. I bring it up only because someone else marked him as withdrawn, which I don't think is accurate. Buspar (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did not notice this discussion until just now, but his campaign is finished in the same since as Huckabee and Romney. Just because his name is still on the ballot and people still go and vote and advocate for him, does not mean his campaign is still active. He is running his Congressional campaign now. Both Huckabee and Romney had supporters continue to advocate and vote for them after their campaigns had officially ended. Their are a number of news organizations that report Ron Paul has dropped out. [2] [3] [4] (Washington Post, Reuters, and ABC News) Rtr10 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If Ron Paul's official website says he's running, that discredits any news agency which says otherwise. Ramorum (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He's not running his Congressional campaign any more. He won that. By a landslide. And if there are news sources that say he's dropped out, then the appropriate thing for Wikipedia to note in the article on Ron Paul's campaign is that there are news sources which are incorrectly claiming that he's dropped out. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources do matter, see Wikipedia Policy - Verifiability WP:VERIFY. To say something and have a plethora of news organizations reporting otherwise is simply your POV. If you want to believe Ron Paul is still campaigning by leaving his name on the ballot that is your right, but as far as actual reliable sources (WP:RS) go they report that he has dropped out/his campaign has ended. As stated above, just because someone leaves their name on the ballot and still has people voting for him does not mean he has a active Presidential campaign. Rtr10 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paul.campaign/ 83.104.225.76 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's wacky. So it's only Ron Paul's POV that he's still running? What kind of topsy-turvy thinking is that? News sources can be mistaken. If a news source were to report that I was dead, my statement that I'm alive trumps it, even on Wikipedia. Sheesh. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Point of fact, Ron Paul won the primary for his congressional district, but he still has to win the district in the general election too, this November. That race isn't over. On the other hand, this one is. Any objective person sees that. If he wants to stay legally active for a "moral victory," good for him, but it doesn't change the fact that unless McCain dies or is incapacitated, McCain has won the nomination presently, aka "clinched" it, aka de facto nominee, and he'll be named the official nominee, aka de jure nominee, at the convention. See the difference? It's like the difference between winning the lottery and getting the lottery check. There's a period of time where you are the lottery winner, but you haven't gotten paid YET, even though the check coming to you is a done deal, sure thing. Unless you're morbid, focusing on McCain's physical demise in some hypothetical scenerio, trying to pretend there is still a legitimate contest here is kind of topsy-turvy thinking in and of itself.--Bark (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he has to win the district in the general election. However, the seat is not being contested, and the deadline for declaring another candidacy for the position has passed. So what exactly do you think he needs to campaign for to win that seat officially?
McCain could die. He could run into a scandal like Elliot Spitzer. Or he could get the nomination. Right now, though, he doesn't have a lock on the nomination. And Ron Paul has not dropped out, which is the main issue. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Did I say Paul needs to campaign for his district? No. I said he hasn't officially won it yet. Just like you keep saying McCain isn't officially the nominee. I do see you are a morbid thinker though, but you are mistaken with your wording. Even though he's not the nominee yet, McCain does have the lock on it. That's what "presumptive nominee" means. If he dies or gets caught up in a scandal, his lock is thrown into question, and that's when we change the template, not before.--Bark (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that a candidate has not withdrawn until they declare that they've withdrawn. While McCain is certainly the presumptive nominee, Paul has not said, "I am withdrawing," so he hasn't withdrawn. There are several news reports that made this point - the earlier reports that he had withdrawn were in error. Buspar (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Count "Places"[edit]

Even though Ron Paul has not officially "withdrawn" he is NOT 2nd in the GOP delegate count. Huckabee and Romney still each have 200+ pledged delegates. These delegates are not released until the convention, thus even though they have withdrawn, they still have pledged delegates to the convention and they still lead Paul in the Delegate count, so if we are going to use places, his proper and official position is 4th, not 2nd. This is now reflected in the Delegate Count template.Rtr10 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No. Consensus is that we only count places among candidate currently running. Also, as soon as the two candidates quit, their delegates became free to vote however they wanted. So Romney and Huckabee have 0 delegates. Buspar (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Romney didn't quit. He "suspended his campaign". The whole reason he did that was to retain his delegates. Presumably to angle for a VP nod, but who knows. But your point about places being counted among candidates still campaigning is correct -LisaLiel (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)