Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries

"Open Convention"

I, myself, and Megyn Kelly, do not like the olde and antiquated term, “brokered convention” — there is nothing ‘brokered’ about it. Rush Limbaugh jokes that “the days of smoke-filled rooms, making brokered deals are over.” Also, I do not like the term, ‘disputed convention’ since the process is not ‘disputed’. It is a continuing contest and not a ‘dispute’. Several pundits/guests/hosts/commentators are beginning to use the term, “open convention”, and that seems most appropriate. The inference is that the final appointment is still open, and some might even say in the 2016 convention, that it is “wide open”. -- AstroU (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

TV hosts and commentators still use the more formal term, "brokered convention" but I still like the terms of Megyn Kelly to avoid the antiquated and non-meaningful term. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC) -- (not to be brokered in smoke-filled closed-door rooms) .!.

Today on TV FoxNews, Megyn Kelly again referred to a "brokered or open convention". -- AstroU (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Open convention, "contested convention", "brokered convention", they are being used to mean the same thing (which we all understand). They are terms used interchangably. -- AstroU (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz distinguished between a brokered convention (being where leaders trade for support), and an open convention where the nominee gains the simple majority with repeated open voting of the delegates. -- AstroU (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Importance of turnout

In both the primary races (Democratic and Republican) and in the general election, turnout is said by many pundits, analysts, and writers, to be key for the 'outsiders'. In the February early voting of Iowa, NH, SC, and NV, Republican turn out was up and Democratic turn was out down:

February Early Primary voting turnout

• State R(up) D(down)
• Iowa +57.4% -27.4%
• NH +19.1% -12.6%
• NV +69.7% -31.9%
• SC +71.1% -16.0%

Are Republicans energized? Did Democrats cross over by reregistering, or did Democrats just stay home? -- AstroU (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what happens tomorrow in Republican vs Democrat turnout. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Colorado Caucuses

According to this article on the Colorado Caucuses today:

   http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

“Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.”

But according to the table here:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Primary_schedule

all delegates are bound. Shouldn’t that say they are unbound ? Or am I misunderstanding how this term is used?

--Andy Anderson 15:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs)

Good question, thanks for asking; look through the Article and see if it is explained OK. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The caucus today elects delegates to the District Conventions in April, and those conventions will (edit: elect delegates to the State Convention and those will in turn) elect bound delegates to the National Convention. They are bound, but not to the initial popular vote. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice the Footnote at the Colorado Convention, it mention that The delegate Are legally bound to The candidate they choice with their name on The ballot. The schedule also mention no allocation is made today. (Jack from my mobil phone, is biking on the jungle and not at my computer) 41.66.208.225 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are the National Convention delegates elected later on. They can choose to bind themselves, though they don't have to. The district delegates being elected today aren't bound. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind two things: (1) there are space limitations, fitting detailed text into a small box. Sometimes every detail can't be explained. (2) If you go down to the long schedule table, and to the particular state, and click in the middle of the row 'contest', it takes you to the state page with more details. In the case of Colorado, a change was made, perhaps per your question/clarification. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegate for withdrawn candidates

Why are the delegate counts for withdrawn candidates immediately zeroed out? Presumably the delegates won by withdrawn candidates are still going to the convention and may play a role if nobody goes into the convention with a delegate majority. We don't zero out the popular vote for the withdrawn candidates and pretend nobody voted for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.120 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of the Iowa delegation delegates allocated to withdrawn candidates are either reallocated or becomes unbound. In other words the candidate looses his delegates when he officially suspend his campaign. 41.66.194.166 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We should indicate this somehow. Perhaps some text under the table, or a footnote? And, logically, we should keep the awarded Iowan delegates for the withdrawn candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is already done in The Schedule secation. For now it is only Bush delegates, give Carson time to drop out for real. The Iowa info can be found in the main result article. Remember this is the General article on this rep. primary and only one in a series. 41.66.208.212 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the delegates are bound in Iowa, they should be included in this table, period. There are only four candidates that received one delegate; it shouldn't be that big of a deal to put a "1" in each of their delegate columns. 50.242.177.57 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

They are now included in a footnote in the schedule section, thanks for mentioning it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Carson

I saw they took out Carson, he is still in the race, but just he withdrew from the debate, he did not suspend his campaign PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Carson suspended his campaign. <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/ben-carson-presidential-campaign-end/471948/>LiveFreeC16 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a suspension of a campaign, that's just pessimism. He only said he was withdrawing from the debate. Why are so many people assuming he dropped out? There has been no official statement yet. TL565 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because the media's reporting on his statement as him ending his presidential bid. I'm not saying it is that way, just what they're reporting. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

His campaign issues this official statement, based on his Tweet:

  I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit.  Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America.  I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results. However, this grassroots movement on behalf of “We the People” will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations. We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation.
  I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America.  Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.
  I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.

Notice that Dr Carson does not 'end' his campaign (but seems to 'suspend' campaigning) to (1) keep an active voice for the concepts and people he supports in his grassroots movement, and (2) implicitly he can have an active voice in the national convention July 18-21, including being considered for VP.https://www.bencarson.com/news/news-updates/official-statement-by-dr.-ben-carson Let's watch his CPAC speech tomorrow. If you don't have time to watch, you can Google-search for it. -- AstroU (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not for us to try to interpret Carson's words: we have to follow RS, and the current article text is out of line with how RS are reporting this. 144.82.212.120 (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr Carson will explain (we can listen to his own words) this Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference: He speaks tomorrow (Friday) at 4:45ET at CPAC in D.C. which you can watch on C-Span3. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said before (sorry, wasn't logged in, IP edit above), and as per WP:PRIMARY, we should not be trying to parse Carson's speech ourselves: we should look at what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through a couple of sources, and most of them state something along the lines of Carson "did not officially suspend his campaign" [1]. I personally think a campaign suspension is coming, and very soon. However, up until an official announcement is made, any claim regarding him suspending his campaign is original research. As such, this article should report him as an active candidate until an official suspension occurs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It really doens't matter what others say about Carson. He says his 'for America' movement and not 'for politics' campaign will continue. History can be written in the Fall, but comments here on TALK are important as we go along. A criticism of one of the founders of Wikipedia is that, at time, sourced biases are given more weight than common sense. In this instance, why should Carson go to the debate and why should he go on the campaign trail when he can weigh in later, like at CPAC? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Proof that Carson did not officially suspend his campaign, http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/03/02/report-ben-carson-to-skip-thursdays-debate-n2127786. People need to stop saying he dropped out on Wednesday and wait until what he says at CPAC. TL565 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr Carson takes the leadership role in My Faith Votes and suspends his campaign at CPAC. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Yes, at CPAC he suspends his campaigning and will head a political group to encourage people of faith to be envolved. -- AstroU (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the website of the group he now leads: https://www.myfaithvotes.com/ -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr Carson will continue to be popular and have a strong impact. Here's a direct quote:

"There are a lot of people who love me, they just won't vote for me," Carson said in a speech at CPAC, held in National Harbor, Maryland.

In his CPAC talk, and in the Q/A right after, the audience was very impressed with his wisdom, knowledge of a good campaign in our times, and just how good this man is. You really need to watch the video. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You can Google-search (or just note the news) to see Dr Ben Carson now endorses Donald J. Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Romney and Establishment Republicans

All the sources are using the term 'Establishment' and 'Anti-Trump'. Rush Limbaugh gives the three plans that Establishment Republicans thought would/could happen: "GOP Estblishment Playbook 101: #1: Trump Implodes; #2: Clear Field for Rubio; #3: Split Delegates to Deny Trump 1,237." [Then try to force in an Establishent candidate in an open convention.] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/03/02/three_gop_strategeries_to_stop_trump ... What do you think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you see what Lou Dobbs said (Fox Business Channel)? He calls "establishment" Romney "dispicable" in a passionate tirade! Dobbs blasted Romney and Ryan for their despicable and dishonest attacks on Trump. Lou Dobbs: "Who does Romney think he is? Romney is nothing more now, obviously, than a tool of the ossified, far too entitled Republican establishment. A Washington cartel of K-Street and Wall Street lobbyists… The same cartel that has orchestrated two recent election losses. Most recently Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, both of whom have attacked Trump with greater energy than they ever mustered for President Obama for example… Romney spent 18 minutes savaging Trump in his speech in Salt Lake City… Meanwhile, the other half of hell’s ticket, Paul Ryan, now as usual is spewing cliches and distortion." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Search this article by July Roginsky for "Establishment" (Republican establishment) and you will see the word used 15 times, (including comments on the article). She hits them very hard, and asks, "Who is the real phony and fraud", speaking of the establishment Republican, Mitt Romney. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/03/romney-attacks-trump-but-who-is-real-phony-and-fraud.html?intcmp=hphz03 -- AstroU (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Awoke a Sleeping Giant is the title of the eight-minute commentary/rant of Judge Judy against Romney bad-mouthing Trump. She is right-on regarding the will of the voters. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I made a proposal over here to add an editnotice to this page and others. Please join the discussion if you have any comments or suggestions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For Republicans and this page, I don't think it is necessary. We are doing just fine. Alert WP editors are keeping it in proper line. I clicked on the "here" URL and it goes to the Democratic Primary race. You did good to put it there and other places, but we don't need it here, in my opion. The notice is too big and would be too distracting here, in my opinion. What do others think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I want to make sure I'm being clear about the proposal. The edit notice only shows up when someone is editing the page. It will never show on the article itself. WP:Editnotice explains it in greater details, but in short, as far as editnotices go, it is not particularly large. The reason I'm suggesting this is because we had an enormous amount of edits on Super Tuesday night from well-meaning editors who wanted to put the latest projections as soon as they showed up on AP and elsewhere. There's an understanding on most election pages that only final results should be put on Wikipedia, and I think such an edit notice would help in avoiding temporary, shifting results from being added. Ideally, the same message will be used as the editnotice for all primary articles. I really believe that we should limit ourselves to final results, and the message in my editnotice actually comes from an HTML comment from Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016.

To make it easier for editors on this article, here's the editnotice in question:

Comments and suggestions are welcome. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 05:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont know if such a notice is really necessary. But if it please remember that the template at the top of the article is not editable in this article. The editors updating it might not necessarily be someone actively editing this article. The template is used in other articles too, (the very reason it is a template.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jack and highlighted in yellow at the very top-right is

 "With live returns coming in, some data may be outdated!"   

This should be sufficant. People want to know news ASAP. -- AstroU (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

People want to know projections that will be their votes (sooner rather than later). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Carson Color on the County Results Map

Since Carson won a single county in Alaska his color is on the County Results Map. But with my eyes, glasses and computerscreen it is almost impossible to see his colour apart from Kasichs colour. Is it just me being blind or would it be beneficial to assign Carson and his single county another colour? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have no problem with it, Kasich with green and Carson with light blue. MB298 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem either, but if people are having problems we may as well change the colour to something else. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me just say, how rude of him to drop of the race after winning one county. The problem for me is not as much as the difference between Carson and Kasich's colours, but between Kasich and Trump's colours in Massachusetts.- Sarilho1 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I can easily distinguish between the colors in Vermont, but I can see how some would have trouble. MB298 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Who have the plurality in the Vermont Delegation

Right now the map in the template at the top have Trumph winning Vermont in both popular vote and in plurality of delegates. But that is not entirely true. Yes Trump did win the popular vote - something I have many times been lecture on by some editors as being totally meaningless :) - with more than a thousand votes, but he and Kasich was allocated exactly the same number number of delegates (8) as they split the delegation down the middle. So who has the plurality in Vermont? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, the delegation and vote maps need to be separated and VT striped in the former, and the table needs to represent it since the header has been changed from "states carried" to "delegations with plurality". —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

States won organization

In the primary tables for 2008, 2012 and 2016 up to today, there has been one column for states won by a candidate. This has been changed to a less straightforward standard which separates states. Whomever is the recipient of a plurality in a respective state is the winner. I don't see what advantage that splitting hairs does, it makes things more complicated, and more cluttered. Lets stick with 2008/2012 standard.

The problem is that nobody, even the Governor himself, would claim that Kasich has bested any candidate in any state. This table organization makes it seem as though Kasich has won what he hasn't. A winner is the recipient of a plurality of the popular vote, and thus delegates. Anything more is frivolous, and I think will confuse readers.   Spartan7W §   21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont know if there was any state that split its delegates in the years mentioned as Vermont did. More importantly than this one state is the fact that rule changes in 2014 have made things differently. I think that the words "States Won" to almost all means the same as the technical term "Plurarity in States delegations". Granted some might think that it could mean highest number of popular votes. (but again I have been taught that popular votes means very little, so those thinking that is what states won means should properly be educated through this article and others like it).

The core of the problem is that things have changed in this cycle. First because the RNC rulebook now says there has to be a MAJORITY not a PLURALITY in at least eight states. In other words you can "win" half the states and still be banned from the ballot at the convention. Secondly there is more states with proportional and winner-take-most contest this time around. The word WON really dont mean much in Minnesota, Iowa or New Hampshire where the "winner" has a lot less than half the delegates. All this is my arguments for the change in design this year. I am a big supporter for consistency between the Wikipedia articles, but I think we will make a mistake doing it right here. And for Vermont, as Spartan said it: The one reciving a plurality is the winner. Well with 8 delegates for Kasich and 8 delegates for Trump no one has won the state! It would never have happened in 2008, but life is chancing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A funny side-thought. Even though rule 40 is made to keep "annoying" people such as Rand Paul out of the spotlight at the convention (and away from the TV screens) it could actually mean that only a single candidate (Trump) will be on the first ballot - and he might even fail to reach the required 1,237 votes - if none of the three other candidates gets a majority in 8 states. But according to Iowa State rules ALL of Iowas delegation have to vote for Trump if his is the only one presented for nomination at the first ballot. Wouldn't it be a weird world if Trump gets all Iowas votes with Cruz still having an active campaign. Just a weird thought. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Bornholm: Yes, but this isn't a table for the nuance and vagueness of party convention rules. What we are displaying is the information relevant to readers, and coverage of this race. Granted that could be a fascinating spectacle at the convention, but here we must consider what the reader expects, and what is of most value. Every source, from Fox, to CNN, to the Green Papers or DecisionDeskHQ calls races for whomever receives the plurality of popular votes. While a second-place finisher, popularly, may receive the same delegate allocation as the first-place candidate, they still didn't win. You go on any of the networks, newspapers, or any other site and they color maps based on winners, like we do here, list states won, like we have done.

That said, I do have a compromise. Do to the nature of RNC convention rules, which most people are oblivious to, we could either include it as a tracking section of the 2016 Convention article, or an all-new article altogether to tabulate this stuff in that context. Here, however, we have to be simple, straightforward, and commonsense. Cruz finishes #1 in IA or KS, his color is on the map, he is listed in the single column of "states won," and so for Trump in NH, AL, or wherever, Rubio in MN, and Kasich wherever it may be in the future. That is a reasonable compromise, and we could form a sandbox to work it out. Here, however, we should go back to where it was before, like 2008 and 2012, so that while we develop the detailed, wonky resource in a more appropriate place, we do no confuse hundreds of thousands, even millions of readers that stop by this article as the race progresses.   Spartan7W §   23:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Spartan7W's approach seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of delegates column is unnecessary; that provision in the Convention rules can probably be reduced to a note in the text somewhere. However, I do think that there should be a separate map for states by plurality of delegates. I believe this was the consensus when the issue was raised last time, i.e. that when they diverge we'd have two maps. Perhaps it doesn't need to be in the infobox, but it is relevant. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created the aforementioned SANDBOX, for the purposes of working on this new table, and we can discuss its placement. I will return the main table to the previous format.   Spartan7W §   00:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I find it strange that an wikipedia article should be made only for what the readers already know and not for what the real worlds rules are, even though they might be very strange and difficult to understand. In my mind I go to an encyclopedia to find out what is the facts, otherwise I could just continue watching TV. But I understand I got the consensus against me and will not try to fight it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Another interesting thing is that in the week before the convention, the Republican Party leaders (i.e., the RNC) are going to change Rule 40, most likely. This view by many on TV/radio/print is easily documented. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain unpledged delegates (168+269)

To anyone who understands the nuances of the RNC:

This link helped to understand delegate totals: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml

1. I see the 168 unpledged delegates come from the 3 * 56 states/territories, which are "party leaders". Is there a public list of these RNC members?
2. There are 269 more unpledged delegates. These are current and former officeholders... I assume this comes from the "presidential bonus" rule which the above link shows is 247. But that still leaves 22 more unpledged delegates. Where do they come from? And similarly is there a public list of these officeholders? I found one for the democrats here: https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6070545/Unpledged_as_of_1.21.16.0.pdf

Bod (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I temporarily reverted your addition of the citation to http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html (which I assume where you found that 168+269=437 stat) on the Superdelegate article until this matter is resolved here because that seems to conflict with another source cited on that same page: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/article/2580289 mentions the three party leaders from each state and territory, but not the others. I'm not sure if the infoplease.com source may be confusing/combining delegates who are party members seating automatically with those that are "bound" or "unbound" (states may instead hold a non-binding primary or caucus, where voters are expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow when selecting delegates). Either way, I find thegreenpapers.com more reliable because of their table. The infoplease.com does not really specify where it got their 168+269=437 figure. (Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Christie endorsing Trump

Would it be worth noting the Chris Christie endorsement? Normally I wouldn't consider individual endorsements to be too noteworthy, but it does seem like a potentially pivotal moment of the race, setting off some fireworks among the establishment, got a lot of press, etc. -KaJunl (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

KaJunl, David Duke's support for Trump got far more press but did not get mentioned in this article either. I would add the Christie endorsement to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article which already has a section about David Duke. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I have a lot of personal bias here. For me, the Christie movement seemed to signal a shift where it was "OK" for moderate/establishment Republicans to support Trump, and I feel like that played a role in prompting the Romney speech. David Duke, on the other hand, was just another crazy person supporting Trump, which doesn't really feel too significant, it's more of the same. But if that got more press coverage, that's a valid point. I'm sure, like everything, it will become more obvious in retrospect what should/shouldn't be included here. -KaJunl (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd place finish

What about a section for second and third place finishes for 2016 like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Results_by_popular_vote ? I would definitely love it.  :-) - Castiel 2015 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This information can be found on the respective articles to each jurisdiction's primary/caucus. Placing second and third place finishes in the table here is superfluous information which is of little value to the overall race, for popular vote, state wins, and delegate counts are more important, relevant, and pertinent.   Spartan7W §   19:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegates for Withdrawn Candidates

Folks — as far as I know, if candidates win delegates but then withdraw from the race (Carson, Bush, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee), those delegates are still pledged to them. Shouldn't the "Projected Delegates" column on the "Candidates & Results" table reflect this? -CircleAdrian (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong. Look at the footnote in the schedule section. Candidates that withdraws looses their delegates - As a general rule. There are many small differences between the differents states rule on this subject. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure this is true, though — and the footnote has no citation. Reuters says: "For the Republican Party, it varies by state. In some states, delegates are required to stick with their original candidate at least through the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. In some other states, if a candidate drops out, his or her delegates may immediately pledge to another candidate. There is also a middle ground in which those delegates are reallocated to the remaining candidates." Also, the Green Papers continue to list delegates as being pledged to candidates who've dropped out, as does WaPo. Since it's at least possible that each of these candidates will have control over whom their delegates vote for, shouldn't be include them in the totals in this column — maybe with a footnote noting the uncertainty? CircleAdrian (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a separate topic for this, to try to get more people to give an opinion. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with CircleAdrian. It appears that at least some delegates remain pledged and so we should note that, following the RS given above. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The green paper explains very clearly every state rule in each contests page and these information is already put as footnotes in the schedule tablet Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is, which is useful, but why not have the pledged delegate numbers in the table next to the candidates' names? That wouldn't take up any more space than currently. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, given that it's not a mystery which states unbind the delegates of withdrawn candidates and which states don't I don't see any reason to hide the information from the table. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The table in the "Candidates and results" section is startling in that the delegate count is shown as "-" with no explanation for the withdrawn candidates. The "Projected Delegates" column header has a citation which links to link for CNN's delegate tracker which shows 8 delegates for Carson and 4 for Bush, and 1 each for Fiorina, Paul, and Huckabee. I don't see a reason above on why this table can't match the sources that table is using. For example, there's another table at Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Major candidates whose numbers match what CNN is reporting. If the election goes down to the wire where the details of the rules for each state matter then we can start throwing in footnotes explaining how Huckabee's single delegate from Iowa could be be counted, etc.

Also, it appears the community consensus both here and in the previous #Delegate for withdrawn candidates thread on this topic is that the delegate counts be shown in the table. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- It is good information, now and historically appreciated. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nebraska delegate count error

The list of states (etc) by date of primary/caucus has the numbers for Nebraska wrong. When you look across, the number of "U" and "B" don't add up to 36 (1 shy). Regards — Cliff 2601:18C:C100:3307:2509:7A60:4D73:4AC8 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards — Cliff CRK-Wenonah (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) CRK-Wenonah (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Also fixed Indiana. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong primary types

New Jersey is a closed primary, not semi-closed. California is open. Missouri is wrong too. How did so many of them get the wrong label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.71.183 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What else? Let's read the Green Papers. -- AstroU (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, the list needs to be checked. If you find these errors you should feel free to edit them yourself! —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now brought the list in line with the info in the Green Papers. The list was right on NJ and CA (they are semi-closed and closed respectively), but there were other errors. —Nizolan ^(talk)

 Done -- THANKS! A worthy task indeed .!. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Olde "smoke-filled room" won't happen

Rule 40 says that votes will happen until someone reaches the simple majority of delegates (1237). I heard Ted Cruz say today that selecting the Republican nominee to run in the general election would lead to an uprising if it is done in a Smoke-filled room. In this, he was clearly mistaken. The RNC could change the rule, and probably will, but it will still come to voting over and over. On the other hand, it is noted that the week or so before the Convention, the RNC will meet and decide any rule changes, such as allowing any candidate with at least one delegate won to be allowed on the first ballot. That could prevent Trump or Cruz (current leaders) from achieving the simple majority on the first ballot. However, they would probably come to the same conclusion after the third vote. Another scenario would be for two candidates to team, POTUS/VP, to exceed the 1,237 delegate majority. This can all be documented in the current news, but why not wait a week until winner-take-all voting takes place in Illinois, Florida, and Ohio. Also, wait until someone exceeds the simple majority and "The Establishment" (so-called) decides to change the rules anyway to try to exclude Trump or Cruz. (Hannity says that what applies to hating Trump also applies to Cruz, the outsiders.) -- AstroU (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

AstroU, are you suggesting an update to the article? If so, what change? Please keep WP:NOTFORUM and particularly WP:NOT#FORUM in mind. Proposed changes need to be backed by WP:RS. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Although this TALK page is not a forum, this is the predominant talk all over media, (as we all see and know). However, that being said, since we are an 'encyclopedia', not a newspaper, we can "wait and see" how to put this into the encyclopedia/Wikipedia. The TALK page here is just to be aware and ready. PS: Wasn't it interesting about the 'Secret Meeting' (not so secret) of Karl Rove et.al. to "Stop Trump"? The meeting is not that secret anymore. It is reported that the rants of Mitt Romney have boosted Trump votes by 11%. I don't have time to document it all, but will wait: as it is said, "The victors write the history." -- AstroU (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still not too clear what changes to the article you are suggesting. The poll taken after the Mitt Romney speech was noted in Mitt Romney's March 3 speech#Effect, though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As I stated, I'm waiting to see developments for the changes to this Article that will last. Specifically, what will lead to a 'disputed', 'contested', 'open', 'GOP-dictated', 'brokered' convention. -- AstroU (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[Establishment(elite)Republicans] "Donald Trump’s Rivals Make a Last Stand in Republican Race Marco Rubio’s campaign tells Ohio backers to vote for John Kasich on Tuesday" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-rivals-make-a-last-stand-in-republican-campaign-1457740723

voting method ... paperles etc

in Schedule and process there is a table but there no information about how the votes are counted. Do anybody opse to add information where voeting is conducted only in electronic form, whwere is only on paper, and finaly where is by computer but wirh paper backup? like to see if there is any statisticaly unrejectable correlation. 2600:1010:B15E:8F8B:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Each state is different. In Los Angeles, California, we have secret holorith-size cards optically read, but also sent centrally to Los Angeles County, where they are read again. It could also come to examining individually if needed. ... ... ... As you saw on TV, in New Hampshire, they counted each ballot for each candidate, put them in a large envelope, marked the results on the outside, used an iPhone to make a picture to eMail in, and then drove the envelopes to a centeral location for verification. Interesting, but perhaps too much detail for here, unless a creative visual is available. -- AstroU (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

By contract, at the Cleveland Convention, the voting will be: each state declaring, on live TV. -- AstroU (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Are states getting penalized in the 2016 cycle?

The "Schedule and process" section includes:

The Republican National Committee imposed strict new rules for states wishing to hold early contests in 2016. Under these rules, no state was permitted to hold a primary or caucus in January; only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada were entitled to February contests. States with primaries or caucuses in early March were to award their delegates proportionally. Any state that might have violated these rules was to have their delegation to the 2016 convention severely cut: states with more than 30 delegates would have been deprived of all but nine, plus RNC members from that state; states with fewer than 30 will would have been reduced to six, plus RNC members. In contrast to the 2012 cycle no states violated these rules.

The first part is fine but I'm confused by the last sentence as it implies that one or more states are violating the rules in the 2016 cycle but does not explain which states are in violation and the penalties. A scan of the "Primary schedule" section just below this text shows that:

• "no state was permitted to hold a primary or caucus in January;" No state violated this.
• "only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada were entitled to February contests." Those four states held February contests but so did Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.
• "States with primaries or caucuses in early March were to award their delegates proportionally." The word "early" is vague but from March 1 to 8 the following states are "Winner-take-most": Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Maine, Puerto Rico, and Idaho. On March 10th U.S. Virgin Islands is Winner-take-all and Washington, D.C. is Winner-take-most. Starting March 12 there are many Winner-take-all states.

References

Are any of the states listed above getting penalized? This seems like something that should be covered in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that Alabama etc held their contests in February, those are all Super Tuesday states that voted on March 1. The last sentence says "no states violated these rules", I'm again unsure how you take that to mean that one or more states *are* violating the rules. The "proportionally" thing is confusing but I believe it simply means "not winner-take-all", which could be clarified. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Nizolan, it says in contrast to 2012 (where presumably, rules were broken), in 2016 no states violated the rules. -KaJunl (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Islands caucuses day

VI supposed to make caucuses on March 19 under "winner-takes-all-9-delegates" system. However they missed submission deadline and were forced to keep last cycle date and system. See [2] for explanation and [3] for prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) --Mgar (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, why does Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 say that it's March 10? StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of, latest news I heard is that Uncommitted is, uh, "winning" the caucus. If that holds, does this mean the Virgin Islands gets a different color on the map? W ASB94 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Because it is on March 10! Early returns have already come in; St. Thomas should be in later. I'd make uncommitted some shade of white, gray or black. pbp 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So why does the NYT say March 19? StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a dishonest newspaper. --85.180.129.208 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The NYT is incorrect. Take a look again at what Mgar posted above: they were originally scheduled for March 19 this year, but were forced to revert to their 2012 date because they didn't submit on time. This is reflected in most sources now (see TGP for instance). —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This source says that "Uncommitted" has won with all 6 votes - http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/results/2016/primary/gop/president/u-s-virgin-islands/ Jesseschulman (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually 6 delegates, the vote count hasn't been released as far as I know (I'm not sure it will be! Scratch that, just seen that Decision Desk have tweeted the vote count —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)). —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the Mar 10 date as if it is meaningful does not equal being accurate. The legal injunction of the delegates that were at question to be allowed on the ballot was rendered Mar 10 and binding count for results moved to Mar 19. There is a point where it is less accurate and makes less sense, especially when related narratives and results table are chronological with bound delegates. Considering no delegates bound to a candidate means little despite "Uncommitted" results. Itonix (talk)

Various news sources have reported the March 10 results (see here and here). I was also in touch with the Green Papers people earlier today, and they will be updating their results page very soon. On that account there doesn't seem to be any problem with listing that result on Wikipedia. Do you have a reliable source for the stuff about the legal injunction? The only info I have been able to find states that an injunction was issued upholding their registration status (here), and a later hearing is due to take place on March 22 (here). I can't find anything about the count being delayed. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Guam

Interesting situation in Guam: reported results have Cruz gaining 1 delegate and the rest being uncommitted, but the uncommitted delegates have promised to endorse one or the other of the presidential campaigns at some point in the next couple of weeks. Will this count as a "contest won" for whoever wins their endorsement, or do we keep it listed as an "uncommitted" victory because the most initial votes went to uncommitted delegates? —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good to keep in mind, with Guam and others. For Guam, they will probably just go with the momentum and highest vote-getter going into Convention. For larger states/territories, they hold a state convention to finalize their stances. See The Green Papers for how this works in Guam and major states. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as uncommitted. Whoever the Guam delegates vote for will be relevant for the National Convention, but if I understood correctly, the result of the Guam primary was that "uncommitted" received the most popular support. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump main photo

Can someone fix the Trump photo? It's not up to Wikipedia's standards I think