Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Missouri popular vote

Since we are listing the "states won" by popular vote, Missouri should be counted for Santorum. The primary was non-binding, but so were straw polls in the caucus states. And the Missouri caucuses do not have a straw poll, so the only popular vote was the February primary. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, based on my research of the caucus results, it appears that Santorum wouldve won a caucus straw poll anyway. I think we can safely award it to him. 40 counties have reported results, which has a MoE of ±12.57. Santorum won 35% of the counties, Paul won 21.25%. Altho this is within the margin of error now that I think about it. But according to this ballot lead calculator, Santorum has a 81% chance of being ballot leader, if Im using it correctly.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree - Unless we start showing half-blank with slashed lines for Maine or any of the other states where the delegate winner won't be known until the state convention then it makes no sense for Missouri either. Santorum was the definite winner there. -Helvetica (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that Missouri isn't shown at all on the county results page. Again, I fail to understand the logic here...Most of the caucus states have a straw poll (the results of which are released the same day) and a more long and drawn out delegate selection process. The only difference with Missouri is that the staw-poll part is a separate event from the caucus and the caucus itself has no straw-poll of its own. So if we're going with the straw-poll/popular result numbers for every other state then we shouldn't treat Missouri any different simply because their straw poll was on a different day than the start of the caucus process. -Helvetica (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what youre talking about, but there were new straw polls on the caucus day (not in every county however). The primary results were meaningless.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the state party: "“Unlike many other caucus states, there will not be a straw poll attached to the caucus,” the memo said. “Caucus-goers will be voting for delegates, and with few exceptions, these delegates will not be bound to a particular candidate. Because there is no vote on candidate preference, neither the Missouri GOP nor any election authority will have or release any data regarding the ‘winner’ of the caucuses.”"[1] So, the state party will not declare a winner of the caucuses. Thus the Febuary primary was the only contest, where a winner was declared, and that winner was Santorum. So, either we color the state map and the county map (as he won every county in the primary) with Santorum's color or we leave them grey or grey-striped in aeternum, which would make no sense. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to still have Missouri striped. The caucuses are over and the state party has said that it will announce no winner from them, since they didn't hold straw polls. So the only vote held on presidential preference was in February. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the state party can say armageddon is upon us, but the facts may be different. What they meant is that no straw polls were mandated. Several counties did in fact take straw polls. Others had the slates announce which side they were supporting. Thats where the county data is from. The primary is not a straw poll. Its a monkey poll that means nothing and shouldnt even be used for anything really, but is included here because it does have official Missouri standing (altho not from MOGOP).

As for the county results page, what are you talking about Helvetica? There is no county results page. Only a results page, which I do need to add the caucus county map to. I wonder if well get district results map from every caucus state. Then we could have a district map.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reporting on election results must be based on official data, not unreliable and incomplete hearsay. According to the state GOP such data do not exist of the caucus winners. The Missouri GOP does not acknowledge any winner in the caucuses. The only official winner of a popular vote in Missouri is Santorum on the basis of the primary, which was an official event, regardless of your personal opinions about it. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing the county results map, although I'm not sure if I've broken upload rules or not. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and successfully replaced the file on the results page but I think I accidentally removed the revision history. This is the file that I made, if there are any changes anyone thinks should be made to it I'm up for suggestions. Also, I'm unable to edit it on the main primary page as since I'm a new user and the article is semi protected there are restrictions, but it is changed on the results page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png --RoteDelano (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks really good to me. But instead of starting a new map file would you be able to update the File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png? I dont think that is semiprotected. By updating this file with your work it would appear in all the article using this map. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried changing it last night but it appears to be semiprotected. I was able to change it on the results page but then someone reverted it without stating why. --RoteDelano (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Well I can now edit the PNG and SVG maps, so if the other editors dont get to it first, just let me know on my talk page. Here is the editor I use for SVG, which anyone can do online. Its pretty easy to use. On that note, the nationwide and Missouri maps are now updated based on the caucus results I was able to dig up. =D --Metallurgist (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not consistent to apply a different standard to Missouri than to all other states. We have, for example, colored Iowa's counties on the basis of the preferential vote, not on basis of delegate allocation. The Missouri GOP (which is the definitive authority on the issue) has said that there were no straw polls, and that it does not release any data concerning the winner of the caucuses.(source[2], also see quote in the section above.) Thus any data you "dug up" must be unofficial and unreliable. The February primary remains the only official preferential vote with a declared winner both statewide and by county. It was non-binding, but so were straw polls in most of the caucus states as well. We can't use a different standard for one state. Besides, having most counties as grey gives the wrong impression that there were no votes cast. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Great job on learning the way around maps. Since the Missouri GOP wanted to make this weekends caucuses not about the presidential race it will be hard to find even unofficial numbers for all counties. All delegates to the CD and State conventions are unbound of any presidential preferences and many caucuses may have followed the lead from the leadership and not even discussed it. I too think the best think to do is to use the old strawpoll from the nonbinding primary. Not perfect but that is the best numbers to come out of missouri. Check out the reference in the contest tables, Missouri row to learn more. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No different standard was applied to Missouri. The primary effectively didnt exist. It doesnt mean anything and shouldnt be used at all, if we have to pick one. The Missouri GOP can say what it wants, but many of them did take straw polls. Others made clear who the delegate slates supported. Everything I dug up is perfectly reliable since journalists who were there recorded the results. As for the gray, a note can be added.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a different standard was applied. At the moment the winner in caucus states like Iowa, Washington and Kansas, is indicated by the solid color of the popular vote winner on the state map, and the county map is colored on the basis of the straw poll. In most caucus states the straw poll was non-binding, do you claim that those straw polls did not exist? Do you want to grey stripe most of the other caucus states as well? And should their county maps be scrapped too? Why should Missouri be the only exception? You might think that the Missouri primary didn't exist, but the state party disagrees with you. And I think the Missouri GOP is a more reliable authority in this matter than you. I don't understand why we should use unofficial and incomplete results not recognized by the state party instead of official and complete results. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To keep the map discussion in one place, lets have it on the county maps talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png#Missouri Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana

Shouldn't Louisiana be striped since it still has a caucus that decides over half their delegates? 205.217.238.62 (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Will there be taken a strawpoll at the caucuses coming later? Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Yea it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallurgist (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on the 2008 Louisiana process there was no straw poll, but I don't know, whether they still have the same rules. But in any case, in the 2008 map of the GOP primary, LA is solidly colored with Huckabee's color, as he won the primary, although McCain ended up with more delegates. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The state map are used in different articles. It would be good to have discussions about this map only at one place - its own talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this wikipedia page run by Goldman Sachs as well??? [Against Ron Paul]

How can the page show ron paul with so few delegates? several soruces like this one http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ron-paul-supporters-dominate-gop-caucuses-in-st-louis-jackson/article_4c7977d4-75e0-11e1-858e-001a4bcf6878.html say "Paul's backers won all 36 delegates" in 1 of several caucuses (remember this is just 1)

I am assuming a few select group of people have "made up" rules on what delegates should be counted(i.e only the ones from winner take all states)

p.s i am not a US citizen i live in england, so excuse me if i made some mistake about US politics--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The delegates in this source is not National Convention Delegates. It is delegates from the caucus to the next political level in the Missouri GOP system. The entire state delegation to the national convention is 52 delegates from Missouri. this article: United States presidential primary explains how the whole primary system works. Very interesting. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, the infobox shows only bound delegates. That's because there are so many varying estimates of actual delegates, it would be hard to justify picking one estimate over the others. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"As I understand, the infobox shows only bound delegates", which gold man sachs employee decided only bound delegates should be on the info box. was there consensus for this?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe you should call Goldman Sachs's customer service and ask them? Be sure to tell us how that turns out. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You ADMIT you aren't from the US and have no idea what you are talking about. Then you go on to prove it to the world.74.67.106.207 (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the whole article. It explains the primary procedures and the difference betwin bound and unbound delegates. Very informative actually, good to use a little time reading. Different counts are avaible. If you are even more interested go to the result article with even more indeep informations. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea?

Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. Why is the word fraud not mentioned once in this article? Its been noted in the media and even with video proof that there was fraud. like what happened in maine, missouri?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

- Hot Stop^UTC 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

source, reality check: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine, seems america is becoming more and more like north korea and americans are too lazy to do anything about it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Especially not YouTube videos uploaded by wackos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.207 (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

North Korea? Really? Maybe episods of voting irregularities could be mentioned in a sober way if it was not for such illiterate comments. There was some real problems in Nevada, and it seems that right now the Missouri GOP are having problems with their voting procedures too. That would be worth a few wellsourced lines in the article. Why does these conspiracy discussions that pops up on the talkpage always involves Paul? It is really slandering a honourable candidate that represents a wellorganised and seriouse minority in the GOP. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

you call them "irregularities", call a spade a spade, the sources i used (if i recall) also use the word fraud, America is going down the gutter.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The burden of action is yours, not the active editors of this excellent article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

More vote rigging and fraud

see 2 videos http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 : why does america want to be more like north korea, i thought it was the land of the free, thats why they keep invading countries to give them freedom. joke, but this is more evidence of fraud, yet this article does not mention the word "fraud" or "vote rigging" even once !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, love the utterly overblown phrasing choices. So nice to see someone interested in information, not spin. Oh, wait, reverse those last two. Primary politics, full of the usual dirty tricks. Paul's folks aren't above pushing the envelope and manipulating things to their own advantage. Case in point - Paul's only hope of any influence on the primary is through caucus states where it's not voters that make decisions, but highly active delegates willing to spend hours in a caucus. It's a primary election. It's full of crappy rules, bad organization and people way, way out of their element. Ravensfire (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

so its ok to break the rules/law if the rules a crap anyway? is that what a your saying--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note that Wead isn't quite independent in terms of the election, but surely you already knew that. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

excuse me if i said something wrong about US politics. i am from england, but i find this primary thing fascinating, because its so full of fraud yet american say they are free and recently their media & gov criticzed russia for not having "fair elections"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, do you know of any national election that doesn't have allegations of fraud? Won't happen. Ravensfire (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

well i have given video evidence of it, including from the media, in first 2 video on my first post, "see 2 videos...." part--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Conservative Party of England just had a scandale (again again), it is unfortunatly but it does not mean that Cameron is now the supreme dictator of UK, England is not pointing at Denmark with its nuclear missiles, they are not kidnapping danish citizens. Miscon you stated that you are from England, have you found yourself without food this week, without the right to say what you want, without the possibility to use the internet because of the Conservative Party Scandale? Because what happens in England must be the same as England is just like North Korea now - Right? Dont belittle the suffering of the korean people by making such stupid remarks. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

scandal in the uk (about cash for acess to pm) is not the same as what am talking about, what am talking about is vote rigging and fraud, an unfair election, the same thing US gov criticised putin for--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DFTT Plenty of things they could do - add material to the appropriate state's primary election article, backed by actual WP:RS, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Why link to DFTT, are you suggesting that i am engaged in vandalism on wiki? am assuming you made an error typing the link--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Qoute from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles."

Maybe there is a place on Wikinews for this discussion? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

it seems you just want to put this under the rug, how come you dont want to give any attention to vote rigging and fraud (which is fact, not opinion as i gave video proof) in this article itself?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the quality of sources needs to go way, way up. Youtube, partisan blogs and non-professional opinion pieces aren't going to cut it. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

just in case you missed it, these are the original video proof i was reffering to Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. i wrong said go to section that says "see 2 videos"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, hence I don't give a shit. This is WP, not a forum. Ravensfire (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

and i also posted that article: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You didn't bother to look to closely, did you? Not reliable, not even close. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing I haven't understood of Ron Paul supporters: you say 1) that the Paul campaign's master plan to harvest delegates from caucus states is working like a charm, and that Paul actually has the second most delegates of the candidates, but you also say 2) that there is a massive voter fraud operation to disenfranchise Paul voters in the caucus states to deny them delegates. How do you not see the contradiction here? Both claims can't be true, since they pretty much cancel each other out. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The videos and articles provided ^above show some of the mechanisms by which the GOP is stonewalling Paul delegates, but they are deemed unreliable sources. The strategy *is* working which is why the GOP is resorting to dirty tricks, inside influence leveraging, or whatever the skulduggery of the moment to block or disqualify Paul delegates. In other words it's a very protracted and complex process which can't be characterized by either/or propositions.

Sources which mention fraud, can any be used

there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business insider, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news. video evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. which of these are acceptable to use in this article to bring up fraud/vote rigging e.t.c--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not doing your work for you. I want you to go through WP:RS and tell me why you think those are reliable sources. Hint, also look at WP:YOUTUBE. Ravensfire (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ok then you tell me what is a reliable source then?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not gonna do it. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

are you kidding me? your accusing me of being a troll for trying to mention fraud?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For the RS comment, hell yeah you're gonna get that. Ravensfire (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube can sometimes be acceptable if it includes actual news broadcasts, as opposed to random people making videos in their basement. Both of those videos are from a local Fox news channel reporting on the issue; sourcing to the news site itself is far better than sourcing to YouTube though. As for the text sources above, I think all of them except the Making Gold Simple one are reliable. However, none of those sources mention "fraud" specifically in the context of the recent voting or delegate selection events. The Michigan story includes some accusations from the Santorum campaign of shenanigans, but that's not quite the same thing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Michigans problems are already mentioned in the article with source Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your MSNBC link[3] says absolutely nothing about voter fraud. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Any way to fix the "Sort By" function?

Right now when you click on a candidates column, it sorts by the first digit only, which is something you might expect from an 80s computer, not a 2012 top 5 web site. So, states where a candidate won 6 delegates comes up before ones where he won 55.74.67.106.207 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions: (1) Become an editor by creating your ID; (2) Read the two lines above the Table to see that it sorts correctly by clicking on triangles twice. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, 74 are right. There is a real problem with the table. It does not sort correctly, because it does not conform to the limits of the sortable table. It can be fixed, but there is a price to pay. If a sortable table should sort numbers nothing else must be in that colum. So the RNC brackets have to go. If it should sort the dates right only one date can appear in the colum. But since it is sorted this way from the start the best thing will be to make that colum unsortable. Even though it will mean changes in the table, 74 is right. Why have a sortable table when it cant sort prober. I will work on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting the unbound RNC delegates info in the result section and compiling the schedule to one table instead of three. When I am finished with this it the sorting troubles should be done away with. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to check the numbers and dates. But please read the legend first. It need some gramma check too. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) . . . : Done ... Also completed. Thanks Jack! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is working right now, but it was NOT working right when I wrote this. I did read the table and DID click the table twice. But if Mr Shipp would have read MY comment, he would have realized that the issue had nothing to do with clicking on the triangle twice. I was not saying it was sorting least to most. I was saying that it was sorting by the first digit. It sorted from highest to lowest, but it saw 7 delegates as more than 43 delegates because 7 is more than 3.74.67.106.207 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hay no problems, a simple thank you would have been enough. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures in the article

Right now there is pictures of all 12 major candidates in this race. But it would be nice to have some photos from an actual caucus, from primary voting, from campaign events or from ???
As events unfold the article is going to be a little longer and it could be nice to have such a photo or maybe even two in the later sections. So if anyone have the oppertunity then bring your camera. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I found four pictures of the candidates campaigning, one for each. I think it would look nice if there will be one in each section (Super Tuesday, Marts and April, April 24, May). The last two I have put in the state of the primary section for now. Not to get a outcry from the Paul and Gingrich supporters. This was the best pictures I could find on Wiki. Maybe there will be better later. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Visual delegates bar

The red bar below each candidate's photograph used to give a visual representation of the percentage of the delegates that each candidate has secured. Now it is just a red bar. Any way to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Election Fraud

Some more sources on that. There's quite a few actually for a variety of different states in the primary, so it should probably get its own section in the article.

Ron Paul Hints at Suspicion of Election Fraud - The New American

Maine GOP recounting caucus votes - Politico

BLACK BOX ELECTION FRAUD ALLEGED IN GOP PRIMARIES - American Free Press

Reps to investigate robo-call election fraud in Washington State - Digital Journal

Reality Check: GOP scrambles under allegations of rampant election fraud in Maine caucus - Fox19

I think this is enough to start with. Silverseren^C 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you write it yourself? If the sources are good and the incidents are important enough to warrent mentioning on the national article then there should be no problems. Maybe you can find room for some of the minor incidents in the state articles. Or maybe it could be a whole new article in the republican primary series.Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

March Delegate Count

Are there really 3,488 delegates at stake in the March primaries, as half the delegates is the 1,144 needed to win? Perhaps this was just a typo? Captain Gamma (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a typo. It should be 348. If an admin would kindly edit to that effect, it would be appreciated. --Zak (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just a simple user, but I have corrected the typo. This article is only semiprotected so any autoconfirmed user can edit it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A 'simple user' but also a profound contributor to Wikipedia here. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Count Discrepancy

The delegate counts in the infobox and later in the article don't match up. Is it supposed to be this way for some reason, or does one of the areas need to be updated? Alphius (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is a template used in several of the primary articles. It uses DCW as a source for the delegatecount. This source only accepts delegates already elected and pledged. That includes RNC, Bound and Unbound delegates. It is very conservative with the RNC delegates, requiring 2 sources for each.

The delegatecount in the resultsection of this article:

The source for Bound delegates are NPR, they simply counts all bound delegate (both legally and morally). These delegates have to vote for their candidate on the first ballot

The source for Unbound delegates are for now GP, not a specific subpage but gathered from the different subpages of the GP. We need a good source for this. So if anyone can find a source that lists all the Unbound delegates it would be great. Unbound delegates dont have to vote for their candidate but want to because they are strong supporters, and that is why they have been elected delegates at their conventions. Right now this is only from the territories, but other conventions are comming soon.

The source for the unbound RNC delegates are DCW because of their two source policy. The unbound RNC delegates stands outside the electionprocess and can pledge to any candidate they find is in their and their political base's interest.

The source for the projected count is GP. This could also be CNN or any other news organisation. This is simply a guess on what will happen at the local conventions in the future.

Since there is no official delegatecount I dont think it would be good to only have numbers from a single source. If any of these sources should change then let us discuss it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would myself like to suggest that the projected count in Results#Delegate count be changed from GP to CNN. It is nothing more than a guess anyway and CNN is a highly known source to the general public. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers seem the best to me. CNN is 'highly known' but to many of us in the public, it is highly known to be Liberally biased. An example was when former Clinton top-advisor and now with CNN, George_Stephanopoulos reported that Florida had gone to Gore when the panhandle had not closed voting. Anyway, in the instance of Republican race reporting, they are second-to-none (except Green Papers and Wall Street Journal). I give highest marks to Green Papers, CNN, and WSJ. PS: It was Stephanopoulos that started the whole 'contraceptive flap' by asking Mitt Romney if states should be able to decide about paying for contracetives, and Mitt Romney said, in affect, 'What are you talking about George? Nobody is even talking about that; no one is suggesting that." George, of course, persisted in trying to ask, but Romney didn't fall into his trap. Trap, you ask? Yes, and you can see what it did to Santorum's campaign because of his prior quotes. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just note that Stephanopoulos does not work, and has never worked for CNN. He works for ABC News. Simon12 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit of funny editing

An editor put this on the top of the article. I undid his edit, but I still think it is funny, so I will put it here for other editors to have a laugh

For a less confusing nominee selection process, see Calvinball.

In Calvinball there is only one rule - You cannot use the same rule twice! - I wonder if some Republican state committee members reads Calvin and Hobbes Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Truly funny. I laughed out loud. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think normally the system 'works' when the media is able to force a frontrunner. This year we have 4 solid candidates going into April. Thats highly unprecedented in the Republican Party. From what Ive been reading, it may enable Paul to get 2nd in the delegate count because his supporters study the rules like theres no tomorrow. But who knows...--Metallurgist (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And a longer race with more solid candidates is excactly what the RNC wanted with the rulechanges. To give the "giving lesser known candidates a chance and making it harder for a frontrunner to secure the majority early". That is excaclty what happened, but no one seems to rejoice that the plan works. Humans are funny. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The state of the Primaries section

It currently says Tuesday is April 3rd. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake that someone should fix. 74.90.121.53 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's think. One way to remember is this: Monday is when the 1940 US Census becomes available, and that is April 2nd. April Fools Day is traditionally on April First and that would be Sunday, I just checked. OK, yes, you are right in believing April third will fall on Tuesday as you suggest. PS: Check out https://the1940census.com/ Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose the 1940_United_States_Census will change the 2012 Election, but you may find its WP page interesting. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I'm confused why reader 74...53 is confused. Am I missing something? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

My apologies all I was tired and didn't realize that google gave me a 2011 calendar. 74.90.121.53 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's OK; gave me a chance to mention my other hobby Thanks for helping edit! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter Poll

Is there any point in including a Twitter based poll here or in a related page? e.g. that compares the relative number of followers or mentions of candidates? e.g. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=41 The split of followers for Romney v Santorum 69/31 correlates with their delegate count (568 v 273). But the split including Gingrich and Paul looks very strange with Newt winning the follower battle. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=154 Is there value to this data in any of the articles? Obviously, it is verifiable fact (since all data is accessible at Twitter.com) but is it neutral or relevant? Uptodateinfo (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an article with strawpolls, it sounds like it would be the place to put it. Straw polls for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is on the rise and I'm ramping up myself. Jack's point is well-spoken: put it in the 'Straw Poll' article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The results

You might as what have happened to this nice and big resultsection, now we are left with just the small one in the start? The answer is that the results have migrated to the resultarticle. Both to streamline this article but also to bring more attention to the result article. this very good article have all the results, want the numbers then go to the resultpage, they have all the numbers. I hope that fine article will keep getting improved as the certified elected real human alive delegates start appearing. So the 2012 result article one day will be the article with all the delegate and populare count from the whole race. Not just the CNN and Fox projections but the real certified results. If anyone dont like this move they are of course welcome to revert it an we can have a discussion and a consensus about it. This is just my opinion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who fucked up the article

Excuse my french, but the editing of this article is just frantic. One day it looks totally different from the previous day. Its no need to remove useful info and media unless its got absolutely no relevance or if its unsourced. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I haven't attacked any one or been aggressive. And swearing is just a word. So Civility win, I'd say. Oh btw, do you have anything to add that is of relevance? Jørgen88 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that whether or not you attacked a specific person or spoke generally, it is still bad form, as it can easily be seen as aggressive and disruptive. It detracts from the content of any argument you may have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The title itself is pretty much an attack using the word fucked up instead of a more polit term, but anyway. I dont know about any info that have been removed, but I might be wrong. The words have been copyedited and rewritten to get a better english (what I am thankfull happens to most my edits) and since it is an ongoing process new info are been added and info stated twice in the same section is being compressed. The only info that have been removes I know of is in the primary schedule, and that happened to make the sortable table working, there are limits to how much info there can be in each colum in a sortable table. Personally I also migrated the results to the result article (there is more than one excellent article on this primary) but I see that it is back, No one have commented though in the explanation I have stated in the section just above. Do you have any specific examples of info being removed? Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't use swear words", Calvin & Hobbs, Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you need political satire from Pulitzer Prize winning Conservative Michael Ramirez, check this: [4] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Awww you nicked that cool table. What was wrong with it? If you have problems with the sortable, you can get rid of sortable. I dont know why we even needed it really. Also, you can make specific columns unsortable. Discuss before making huge changes (unless you did. I havent read above here yet).--Metallurgist (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I did, it was after a request was made. And I did make the date colum unsortable. The only info that had to go was the RNC delegates that had pledge themselve. There can only be numbers in the number colums in sortable tables. No brackets, spaces, puntuations and so on. The table is still there, just in the later part of the article - The nerd part :). I am actually working on improving it, bringing all the election of delegate info into it. My work is in my sandbox, but still a lot more to do. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)