Jump to content

Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.67.108.222 (talk) at 07:54, 18 April 2012 (→‎Extremely Dubious "Projected first Republican National Convention vote"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ron Paul with first place finish in US Virgin Islands

Why does it say Ron Paul got a first place finish when Romney got more delegates?--InformationContributor11 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Romney won more delegates, Paul won the popular vote. [1] --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It actually says both. In the states carried section (that specificly say it is by popular vote) Paul has VI listed as a win. But in the March and April section where the text states that it is by delegate count VI is a Romney win. (VI for US Virgin Islands.) This you can see by the numbers of wins in the first table in the State of the primary section, that counts all the wins from the timeline section (as its legend states). So the tables in the article shows the whole story. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true with North Dakota by the way. Up north it is just Santorum and Romney, not Paul and Romney. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is that we need some 'yellow' on the map. This is the only 'yellow' on the first map. We must keep it. I will strongly disagree with changing that. Others have pointed out (in archived discussions, and also here now) that the reason has to do with popular vote vs district vote. We can keep in mind that the Republican leaders in the US Virgin Islands decide, not those who voted and definitely not outsiders and the media. Of course, the leaders follow the vote, but they also look at the trends and some states will make part of final decisions at the national convention. Not-Romney supporters hope to have a 'brokered' final nominee by Romney not having 1,144 votes on the first vote. Note that Romney can win more district-delegates and another can have more total votes. How does that happen you ask(?) Consider if a million Paul votes are in one district, and Romney has a dozen districts with a dozen votes and no Paul votes in those 12 districts. Romney would get a dozen delegate (for example only) and Paul would get one. In the case of the US Virgin Islands, less than 500 people voted. It is like the Electoral College for the general election in November. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting thing (seen in our table) is that the numbers on the right add up to delegates to be allocated, but the numbers don't add up to the total, because of the three given to states from RNC (Republican National Committee) to state leaders. Of course, the five states that moved forward in the schedule (against RNC orders) have zero 'RNC' votes (NH, SC, FL, AZ, and MI). ... Current table has a lot of information. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said previously, there was no presidential preference straw poll done in the Virgin Islands. So we CANNOT determine the winner of VI the same way we did in Iowa, Maine, etc. The delegate vote is not the same thing, because we don't know which candidate the "Uncommitted" voters support (Uncommitted beat Ron Paul by the way). There weren't a lot of Romney-pledged delegates running, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates. For cases like VI where there was no presidential preference vote, I think we should fall back on who won the most delegates, meaning it should be counted as a Romney win. Needing some yellow on the map is a poor justification, for obvious reasons. Lets have a vote now on who we should say won VI, for me it's:

I am a Paul supporter but if it has to accounted for in such a way it should be marked for "uncommitted"...it was set up so that the people voted for delegates and not candidates...9 people ran as "uncommitted delegats", 6 as Paul delegates, 3 as Romney delegates and 2 each as Gingrich and Santorum delegates and then the votes of the delegates were added up and granted to their pledged candidate. It ended up with Romney lucking out to get all 3 of his delegates in as the Paul votes were diluted and it ended up like this; delegates: Romney 3, Uncommitted 2, Paul 1....alts: Paul 2, Uncommitted 2, Gingrich 1...2 Paul's and a Santorum tied for last alt (the 6th Paul delegate missed that tie by 1 vote).50.96.79.172 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Neal Mc.[reply]

Many informations are already in the United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012, but maybe that article can be improved even more? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to Jack Bornholm .!.

Jack, Congratulations on your high achievement, Golden Wiki Award, "You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month!" This article should be up for awards also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we are getting there. But we still need something about the money, the mothermilk of all (US) political campaigns. This place: [[2]] might give some helpfull informations if it is a reliable source. New York Times is a reliable source and they have a nice site: [[3]] Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll try to keep it balanced with FoxNews since The New York Times has a Liberal bias. FYI, Washington Post and The New York Times are Liberal; New York Post and Washington Times are not. But wherever it is found, Truth is paramount, even from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. This is a comment on accurate sources and acceptable references, hopefully, the same. . ... OK? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that this is a really fine article. Congratulations to all for terrific effort and wonderful results. Poihths (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My friends are all watching this article and it 'hits' very high on Google-search. It's a great article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check under 'History' for this Article, and choose 'Extended tools' you can find that:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has been viewed 445,653 times in the last 30 days.
Yes, search engines come to Wikipedia often. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "something about the money", this is interesting: List_of_richest_American_politicians which you find as a "See also" under Mitt Romney, worth $200million to $250million. The way I look at it, money is not the main factor in the 2012 presidential election, since the likely-voters of USA will seek truth and value. Yes, super-PACs will be a big factor due to the CFR act and the Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment, free speech. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't consider a negative ad that is true to be an attack ad. The other side can 'set the record straight' rather than just cry, 'Foul!' Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and all 200 'watchers', you may be interested to know that I have joined the discussion over at the US campaign finance reform page (McCain-Feingold of late) and you can see the TALK section I started (after linking 'See also' back to here.) :: Talk:Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_U.S._CFR_on_2012_presidential_.26_congressional_elections
Just like we don't put everything here, we can direct over to this article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

I suggest merging the individual states' articles on the primaries into the states' articles on the general elections. This would involve a large merger, but I believe it is a sensible alternative to the proliferation of micro-articles.

  • Format: [[United States presidential election in State, year]]

In only a few states is there enough of an article to merit a separate article on that one election for that one party, so it seems unnecessary. Typically with elections to other offices, for example U.S. Senator, the primary and general elections are together in a single article, not three. I suggest, therefore, merging the potential 150 articles (plus three for each territory/DC), into merely 50 (plus one for each territory/DC).

I welcome your discussion and seek a consensus.—GoldRingChip 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could mention that articles are not proliferating since the states are all set up, awaiting their elections. I consider it up to Wikipedia editors in those states (mainly) to amplify the most, as some have done, Viz: Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Florida, and others. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Can we talk about it after it is 'history'?[reply]
Please note, however, that this merger is suggested to apply to earlier years' elections, as well. It certainly isn't premature for 2008. As for this 'history' point, wikipedia is intended as a historical encyclopedia, not a running score sheet or a news site. Thus, the 2012 articles are history already; otherwise, they wouldn't belong here. Furthermore, what about other elections in 2012, such as Senate, Governors, House etc?—GoldRingChip 16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the consern about stubs that will never be real articles. But it should also be considered not to confuse election in the sovereign republic of the United States of America with the internal party election of some parties that have nothing to do with the state. It might be every day life for US readers, but the very special american system can easy be made more confusing for readers from the rest of the world. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the presidential general election is just an election run by the state to pick its electors. Each state theoretically has a different electoral election system, too. —GoldRingChip 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes electors who are mentioned in the constitution and elections run by states that are part of an sovereign union. States and a constitution that will exist when the Republican and Democratic parties are long gone.the general election of 1848 saw the Free Soil and Whig parties. They didnt have primaries, but if they would have had party primaries it would still not be a part of the sovereign country USA. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why sovereignty would argue against merging these articles.—GoldRingChip 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong but if they make it to the ballot any party can run a candidate for president. The american people simply choice to vote for the two major parties - until they collapeses, witch have happened several times in american history. So the primary election of the republican or democrat or green or any other party dont have the same status as the election of the states and the union. It is simply the partymembers that choice who they want to run in the real election. Maybe a merge will be a good idea, but the party primary are not really a part of the "real" election. And that have to be clear also for non us readers. That will have to be kept in mind when making the articles. the election of the current two major parties are not first step of the official US election. (the founding fathers, at least Washington, really didnt want any parties at all) Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. However, in all other elections, primaries are included in the general election article, with a section about the primaries. See, e.g., United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010. That's what I propose here.18:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I see that. I have been looking at state primary articles for both parties and it seems that (generally speaking) the only articles are from this and the last presidentiel election cycle. So it can be done, but if it is done it would be a major change in the articles pattern and it should be done with all the articles, both republican and democrat for both elections and for all state/territories. That is more than 200 articles! Can you really do all that work alone? Maybe it was an idea to bring this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections This seem to be a dicussion to big for this talkpage. Do checkout the old merge proposal on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 also made to keep the wikipedia from being flooded in stubs. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack some. Something similar has been discussed on the Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 page. What it seems you are proposing is redirecting the primary articles into the main general election articles. Are you going to be the one to take all that info and merge it into the new articles? Don't think it really should be done. The way it is now would be for the main general election article to have links to the primary articles. What is wrong with that? Frankly, the primaries need to have their own articles (or redirected to Dem or Rep presidential primaries 2012 article if they don't warrant their own. The presidential primaries are distinct elections for the party nominations. It would especially be a disservice to the articles and readers to merge major elections like the 2012 Republican primaries in New Hampshire or South Carolina. Those absolutely need their own articles. And in 2008, both major parties had competitive primaries. If merged into a general election article, you will invariably lose some info as it would become too cumbersome and not read well to have both the primary and general elections covered in the same article. Again, these are separate elections and should be treated as such. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some potential for incorporating the party primary articles into the state articles, perhaps for convenience and since some states do not generate a lot of media coverage or interested Wikipedia editors, but I'm officially still neutral on the idea for now. However, I've thought for a while that the "[State] Republican primary, [year]" format was poor, as it does not specify the office the primary is for. If it's a presidential primary, just referring to it as a state's "Republican primary" seems—while most certainly not intended to be—misleading. Connecticut Republican primary, 2012 is a presidential primary, but the state will have another primary in August for U.S. Senate, Congress, and state legislative seats. I'd like to see the word "presidential" added to the titles of all the state articles for the major party presidential primaries for clarity (unless, of course, they are merged instead if there is a desire to do so). —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, they definitely need to specify that they are presidential primaries. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the parties separate: There is often a lot of interesting detail in the state parties' processes of contributing to the choice of a candidate (campaigns, caucuses, primaries, platforms, conventions), and I think that too much of that would be lost or muddled by merging all (or should I say "both"?) descriptions of those processes into one article per state. More important, those processes should remain conceptually associated with the state parties, not with the states themselves. Merging them would obscure the distinction and permit a mistaken concept that choosing candidates is or should be a function of the states, rather than a function of the state parties. The states choose the president, but they are not supposed to be choosing the nominees. The articles should remain separate for most of the same reasons the state political parties are not housed in the state capitols.CountMacula (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::GoldRingChip, I am sinning a little by cutting out my proposal for new articles. I can't tell whether you are responding to it or not. Sorry if you are.CountMacula (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008#Merge proposed. —GoldRingChip 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The four-day break from campaigning Easter weekend (Friday – Monday).

I had some good information under the April pictures of Romney and Santorum. It was at first modified, then added to, and then entirely deleted. Can I suggest the following brief info:

Around April 8, 2012, both Romney and Santorum took a four-day Easter break from campaigning.[1][2] At that date, the delegate count from WSJ was Romney 661, Santorum 285, Gingrich 136, Ron Paul 51, and Huntsman 1 delegate. [4] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really relevant that they took a bit of time off for the holiday? I think the whole strategy meeting that santorum had is more interesting, havent checked if that part is gone too. What is WSJ? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, I think most of your original info is still there. I moved the lines below the tables up to the the rest of the text. I think it looks better to keep the paragrafs together and then have the results below them. I dont know if that is the modified text you are talking about. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more relevant now (can we move it back?) with the next section in TALK I just added. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Maybe a new section or redefining the sections could be done. But let us leave to the news agencies to make the news and lets us write it when it is at least a few hours old. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your fine references and the info was already in the section, just a little above. Now it is in the april section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLASH .!. . . . Santorum suspends his campaign.

FLASH: just breaking :: . . . Santorum suspends his campaign. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Here's the confirmation: [5], [6] --NextUSprez (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new sections with Santorum out

With Santorum out on april 10 the sections have to be rewritten. Now there will not be a separate April 24 section and the many conventions coming up are no longer so important. I suggest that we end the April and March section with Santorum dropping out (and Gingrich if he does the same tomorrow). We could call it March or ????. And the rest of the results from the primaries could be called later states. I dont think we need the results from the conventions electing unallocated delegates at all. The are already in the result article. Unless the Paul campaign are going to make noise about the North Dakota convention it doesnt really fit in anymore either. Maybe it can be put in the north dakota article. But just for this once I am going to park the lines here to move or put back into the article, have patience:

North Dakota Republican Party had its state convention from Friday March 30 to Sunday April 1 where twenty-five unbound National Convention delegates were elected. Rick Santorum had won the strawpoll at the Legislative Districts caucuses on Super Tuesday with a large margin to Ron Paul in second place and Mitt Romney in third place. The party leaderships recommended slate of delegates was to reflect this strawpoll result. According to Santorum and Paul supporters the slate did not live up to this requirement, but gave Romney a large majority of the delegates. Former NDGOP Chairman Gary Emineth called the vote undemocratic and a railroad job on the Say Anything Blog.[3]

What are ideas concerning the layout in the rest (future) part of the timeline section? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History needs to settle in for a moment. States will still proceed with procedures anyway. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich will have no reason to drop out now that Santorum has. Santorum has kicked the door open for him. Jay72091 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. And don't discount Ron Paul with some of the Tea Party support. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just modified our paragraph for April results (Santorum suspending his campaigning). Here is how it reads: Four days later, on April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum ‘suspended’ his campaign.[56] Romney said that Santorum had made a important contribution to the political process and that he will continue to have a major role in the Republican Party.[57] Santorum carried eleven states, six states that allocated delegates and five non-binding caucus states, securing 202 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that his campaigning is 'suspended' but he could still pick up delegates (not too likely). Like Gingrich, he could hope (1) he could still win at the national convention; (2) he can bargain with Mitt Romney to keep family values high on the Republican agenda/planks/platform/messages; (3) angle for some position in the Romney Administration; (4) [Add your thought here]; (5) Other; (6) Etc.
Keep in mind also that Rick Santorum personally made the decision to 'drop out' but not 'cancel out'. I.e., he suspends but does not end. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is further discussion of Santorum at Talk:Rick_Santorum_presidential_campaign,_2012#Who_gets_his_delegates ... FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to securing the Republican Nomination

Of course, the Republican nomination will not be secured, formally, until the first vote at the 2012_Republican_National_Convention starting August 27th in Tampa, Florida. When will the 1,144 votes actually be secured? Not till the end of May, not that far away now. Look to Texas to be the 'clincher' and California to be the 'hammer', (my words, original thought/research). Here is the path to securing the nomination delegate votes (with each state, total delegates & cumulative count, if Romney is allocated them all) :: Start with today from our Table(591) +CT(28,619) +DE(17,636) +NY(95,731) +PA(72,803) +RI(19,822) +LA(46,868) +ID(46,914) +NC(55,969) +WV(31,1000) +OR(28,1028) +AR(26,1064) +KY(45,1109) +TX(155,1264) +CA(172,1436). And so you see that Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky can all vote and still not reach the magic number of 1144 (1,144 is half plus one) . . . so if everybody jumps on board with Mitt Romney, he goes over the top with Texas on May 29th and definitely then with California on June 5th. After June 5th, only Nebraska, Montana, and Utah will be voting. So, you see, although Romney is on a roll, so to speak, (Ann too now that she has a Twitter account and secures the Motherhood vote) the requisite number isn't reached until Texas votes. What if Ron Paul takes his home state of Texas? Then CA would be both the 'clincher' and the 'hammer', in my humble (but obvious) view. All of these states vote not only for their presidential choice, but regarding other details such as their state delegation, local Republican arrangements, and state races. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, This looks like a good 'current delegate count'. [7] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RealClearPolitics says this is the official RNC delegate count: [8] . . . (Romney:573 vs 479) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Dubious "Projected first Republican National Convention vote"

Somebody added a "Projected first Republican National Convention vote" based a single white paper which was released: [9]. I have many qualms about the methodology in this, and the author seems to have a very poor understanding of statistics (e.g. says that having multiple independent sources with error margins "increases" the uncertainty, when it does exactly the opposite). As well as a bunch of very unlikely consequences of Santorum dropping out (Romney loses a third of his support, Ron Paul doesn't lose any, Ron Paul gets half of Santorum's voters, some of gingrich's, Romney gets none). The net result is the projection that Ron Paul will pick up 550 of the remaining delegates, but Romney will only get 310. Now I don't contribute to wikipedia much, so I don't know the procedures for debating or assessing the validity of external sources, but this does seem very out of line with virtually ever other projection by any credible media source, as well as seeming just generally unlikely to any independent observer.

Additionally, I can't actually find the article anywhere else to verify its source- on the wiki page it says "David MacMillan III University of Northern Alabama", but I can't find the article linked to anywhere else on the internet- it seems to literally just be a pdf hosted on a pdf hosting service with no other information about the author than their name. It could literally just be some random person's vague projections formatted into a pdf and uploaded on the internet. Is that really worthy on it's own row, presented as of comparable accuracy to totals from sources such as the green papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

answers your last question> http://www.dailypaul.com/226532/delegate-count-actual-statistical-analysis

Athleek123 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this clearly shows the source is not anywhere near neutral. This is important in this case because the projections can vary wildly depending on the assumptions you make and almost anybody could justify their projections as being plausible whilst making the outcome suit the candidate they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One person's speculative analysis on how the convention vote will go down is definitely not needed, especially if this person is a non-neutral Paulite. I'm removing the item from the article. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this silly analysis ridiculous based on what it is expecting to turnover to Ron Paul..but it is wrong even then. Somehow even after winning NY, NJ, UT and CT, it has Romney getting only 163 delegates, even though he would get 90 from UT and NJ alone. The problem with RonPaulians is that Wikipedia exists in the REAL world. And they don't.
All of the mainstream media is biased against Ron Paul, so every prediction in this article is biased. Adding a prediction from a non-mainstream source, then, adds neutrality, not bias, to the article. Besides, his prediction is already showing itself to be true: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20399310/colorado-republicans-split-delegate-votes-between-romney-unified Athleek123 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But then Romney's count needs to be INCREASED as well. The media was expecting Romney to get just 35% of Colorado's delegates. But he got 45%. Similar results have happened in North Dakota and Wyoming where Romney picked up several more delegates than the media was counting on.74.67.108.222 (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this even remotely a WP:RS? That's it's hosted at a open site immediately disqualifies it. We don't know who did it? (There's a name, but nothing about him), cannot verify if it's an accurate copy and extreme notability concerns. I'm removing it, please address these concerns and get consensus here before readding it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All projections have bias. We must either remove all projections or make a table of all of them. A source doesn't need to be necessary for a projection, because some of the most "reliable" news sources often have the most bias in their projections. Athleek123 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have to have a source - projections from a news source ARE sourced to that news source. Read the WP:RS page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, meant to say "A source doesn't need to be reliable for a projection..." Athleek123 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Ravensfire (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is no such thing as a "reliable" projection. If you wrote up a projection and posted it somewhere it would be just as reliable (if not more reliable) than the extremely biased mainstream media. Athleek123 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, if you'd read the WP:RS page, you'd know that anything that might be questioned in a WP page must be sourced to a reliable source. Period. Not necessarily unbiased, but it must be from a reliable source. You'll note that any projections are both sourced to a WP:RS and we say where it's sourced from so that readers can estimate potential bias in their eyes. But you MUST have a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, all delegate counts and predictions must be removed. For one, the counts and predictions themselves are completely inaccurate because they use the popular vote to estimate delegates, which has nothing to do with the actual delegate count. Athleek123 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are sourced to a WP:RS, then no, they don't. And yes, CNN / FoxNews, etc are considered reliable sources. Ravensfire (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Washington Times a reliable source? http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/15/colorado-further-evidence-ron-paul-will-challenge-/ Who gets to decide that some news organizations are reliable just because they are well-known?
I like the Washington Times. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, yes, the Washington Times is reliable. It meets the criteria in WP:RS. Specifically how you use it may be an issue, so without any context, it's impossible to answer definitively. Ravensfire (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's just that that article^ confirms the reliability of the projections I put up earlier Athleek123 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a hurry to project? Time will tell. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Santorum still shown in the article's infobox?

Rick Santorum officially dropped out of the race a few days ago; why is he still featured in the infobox on the right? Only show the 3 CURRENT candidates!
68.174.106.170 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was a programmer, I started to look at taking Sanorum out; Lynnette called me to dinner; then I figured God didn't want me to remove his picture; (what would Santorum say?) You can realize that he suspended, not ended. He did not say to Romney (or Paul or Gingrich) "OK, I'm out!" What he did say was that his campaign suspends and he will continue to fight for the right, (or something like that). For consistency, we should add "OUT" to his first picture, like in the next picture of him. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that Santorum has more delegates (202) than the combined total of Newt Gingrich (132) and Ron Paul (26) and they all three hope for a 'brokered' convention if and when Mitt Romney does not have half the delegates on the First Vote. Of course, that will go to Romney anyway, but isn't it premature to take Rick Santorum "out"? Just Asking, 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Santorum should absolutely remain in the infobox, if for no other reason than he won a significant number of states (11). Mike Huckabee ended his campaign in a similar fashion to Santorum in 2008, and he is still in the 2008 infobox. Heck, Alan Keyes, who won only five percent of the overall popular vote and zero states, is included in the 2000 infobox.
As for adding "out" to Santorum's infobox image, I probably wouldn't, as I don't recall this having ever been done in infoboxes of the past. However, if it is done, I wouldn't want to see the label left in place after the primaries conclude, as that has never been done before either. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sgt, thanks for your wisdom, experience, insights, and advice. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Santorum Suspends His Campaign for Four Days". Breitbart News. 5 April 2012.
  2. ^ "Santorum Taking Four-Day Break from Campaign Trail". Fox Television Stations, Inc. 4 April 2012.
  3. ^ "Former NDGOP Chairman Calls National Delegate Selection "A Railroad Job"". Say Anything Blog. March 31 2012. Retrieved April 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=487967342"