Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Rick perry enters race

I appreciate Fat & Happy's close reading on the section. I have added the reference, which gives Perry's record on tort reform and explains the rationale behind lawyers who want him away from the white house.--Screwball23 talk 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gary Johnson didn't withdraw on Dec 14

Yes, he's probably going to withdraw eventually to pursue the Libertarian nomination, but he hasn't yet. Here's a source that explicitly says so: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/12/14/Gary_Johnsons_Libertarian_Appeal/

No one editing this to say he has withdrawn has cited a source to support it, because there isn't one. There was an article that speculated he was about to withdraw that was later updated to say he wasn't, and that's it. His campaign site is still active, there have been no press releases, etc.

This is a lame non-issue. He has not withdrawn from the GOP, and all these changes should be undone. The editors involved should be informed of our policy on referencing, and future edits should be treated like any other edit war. If several editors are involved in posting and reposting this misinformation, I would like to know how to put up a page lock for at least a week so only established editors can edit.--Screwball23 talk 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY - everyone involved in editing the major candidates recently should be ashamed

Seriously, I see this page gets something near 10 edits a day on the major candidates gallery. I understand the editors who want to do this are just unable to do any high-value activity on wikipedia and want to make minor changes, and normally I would respect them. But enough is enough. The edit warring is too lame, too unproductive, and quite frankly, the importance of the edits is at a very low level. This page was suffering from the same level of ignorance before I shaped it up and added paragraphs on the campaign. Before that, the majority of editing was done by fire-speed edit trolls who were reacting to day by day news speculation on candidates who potentially would run. People wanted to fight over a Not Running vs. a Declined section. Seriously, a Not Running section? ...I apologize, I digress, because I have the experience of dealing with this before.

Anyway, what is on the page now is not informative and is inviting misinformation. The gallery should include all major candidates, the minors should be listed as Other. The idea that we need a ==withdrew before primaries== section is ludicrous because we are already giving a lot more weight to the gallery candidates and their absence from the primaries can be denoted by the date of their exit. Readers will be fine knowing Pawlenty dropped out over the summer of 2011. They don't need to be spoonfed the candidates in terms of Major, withdrew before primaries (which would imply major or minor?), and Minor. For all I know, Jonathan Sharkey could be included in that section, since he withdrew long before the primaries. And what about candidates who don't actively compete in the primaries? Or what about those that do? Suppose Buddy Roemer gets more votes than Gary Johnson for instance. Does that make him a major candidate? Why does this 'withdrew before primaries' business interest anyone?

And how is it even fair? Herman Cain is technically still on the ballot in New Hampshire. He said he suspended his campaign, not that he "dropped out" or "withdrew". I don't even think he faces any legal repercussions if he decided to come back in. So why is there such a rush to put a misnamed section like "withdrew before primaries" and jump to put him in? And Gary Johnson. All the editors who were fighting so loudly for this Withdrawal section and for Johnson's removal were actually damaging his political viability, as people can still vote for him, and anything otherwise is misinformation irresponsibly disseminated by wikipedia. It's a terrible precedent, because the primary votes will come in soon, and we will soon have totals of votes for all the candidates from all the states. Little reference notes can indicate that Cain was on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, because I'm sure he'll get a few votes. When that happens, all this shortsighted nonsense about how these candidates "withdrew" before the primaries will be so irrelevant that it will be laughable.

In the meanwhile, I am requesting a lock on this page because the speedy edits on the gallery - including the (Texas to TX), etc. need to come to a stop.--Screwball23 talk 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Delegate numbers don't match

Not sure why, but it should be fixed. The delegate numbers listed on the chart here, are not in sync with those found here. Gage (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Virginia

We should make note of the fact that only Romney and Paul have qualified for the Virginia ballot.[1] [2]--Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Hot Stop UTC 19:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Gary Johnson now running for Libertarian Party

Sources: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70727.html, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/20/gary-johnson-reportedly-drops-out-gop-presidential-race-to-run-as-libertarian/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.220.88 (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It says he plans to make the announcement on Dec. 28, so it's not official yet.--JayJasper (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He has now officially dropped out of the republican nomination so someone should put him in italics at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.125.197 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

See Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2012. 99.181.148.11 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich: "from" Georgia or Virginia?

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

Because he represented Georgia in the House of Representatives Tiller54 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
He's almost always listed as being from Georgia or having the home state of Georgia by reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects this. Bastin 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
And as far as this article about the 2012 election is concerned, it appears that when he filed with the FEC in May, he listed Georgia as his address. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Past tense

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

Currently, the organization looks great to me, as of this date. It shows those in, those dropping out, even lesser knowns not in debates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . . The chronology is kept by updating the placement of pictures in the article.
Here in WSJ is a very interesting progressive and averaged graphic of polling, from April 2010 to current date. (You can move the slide at the bottom of the line-chart to move back in time.) . . . You can click to see any of the 17 major polling company results, or just click on the RCP average. You can also select to see polling in specific states.[3] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

potential USA Today resource, regarding Anonymous (group)

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

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

See Iowa caucuses or more precisely Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. 99.19.43.221 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Iowa GOP Ups Protection Against Hacker Attack Wednesday, December 28, 2011 by Steffen Schmidt, IAFC Blogger on WNYC. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Greenleaf is not a real candidate

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

We have an announcement and two sources; that's good enough.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If he filed, hes a real candidate. I think the adjective you are looking for is serious.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Guys, you gotta read the references, because the 2 ref rule that you are referring to is not nearly as important as an FEC filing, which is lacking for Greenleaf. In the references, he told the press that he is not interested in being president, and is not a candidate running for office. He merely wants to put his name on there as a protest vote in the case that someone recognizes his name and decides to vote for him based on his signature issue, government spending. The motivations behind his New Hampshire ballot are simple; it is cheap ($1000) and easy (no organization or grassroots support necessary). For us to suddenly put a person on the list of presidential candidates based solely on the criteria of ballot access in a single state is way too much; it's undue, unnecessary, not newsworthy, and is not worth placement on the Republican primaries; rather, it can be placed on the NH primary page or Greenleaf's article page, which it is, but on this page, it simply doesn't cut it.--Screwball23 talk 03:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
First of all, there is nothing sudden about this, he's been on here for several months. Second, it makes no difference why he put his name on the ballot, his name is on the ballot nonetheless. Third, this page is no special than any other.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Filing with the FEC is not the requirement. Filing to be on ballots is.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
He's on the ballot in only one state. There is zero media coverage of his ongoing "campaign" and his "presidential run" is already covered in his own article page and on the New Hampshire primary page. It is beyond undue coverage to suddenly post him here, on this page, where the larger Republican primary is being covered. I have no objections to this being mentioned on his page and on the NH one, but here, it is senseless to do so.--Screwball23 talk 17:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
That's completely irrelevant to this. That has already been discussed and agreed upon. He has a wikipedia article and two sources confirm he's running for president. He has not appeared in any debates and therefore he is a "minor candidate".--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not lose sight of the relevant conversation : why is he on this page? He's already on the other pages, why here?--Screwball23 talk 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Does this page have different standards than the others? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This page has no "special" standards, to the best of my knowlegde, that sets it apart from the other election pages on which Greenleaf appears. If anything, his inclusion on this page is especially warranted as this article is about the primaries, and he is on the ballot for one the most crucial and prominent primary elections. As previously pointed out, his intentions are not relevant. He filed for - and is included on - the NH primary ballot, which makes him a de facto candidate regardless of his stated motives, and he meets the core standards for inclusion (WP article, two sources). It is worth noting also that he is (or was) correctly listed - per agreed upon crtieria - in the "other candidates" section. So his inclusion is no way contrary to the current standards.--JayJasper (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget the main criterion upon which the entire list of candidates is founded: they are all declared candidates. Back in April and May, several major candidates had filed FEC filings and still did not meet the criteria. Romney, for instance, established a presidential committee before declaring, as did many others. This made a huge difference months ago, back when many of the candidates were still in speculation; for anyone to suddenly give me the excuse that "motivations do not matter" or "declarations do not matter", I have to point that out because that is flat out false. If declared motives did not matter, Herman Cain would still be a candidate, given the fact that he is still on the ballot in several states. Greenleaf a much different candidate with a much different situation than all the others here. He put his name on a ballot while saying he is not running and saying that he has no intention of being president. He placed his name on the ballot with $1000 in a state that requires no grassroots support. Anyone with the money could do that, and he didn't even declare that he is running for prez. No reasonable person would argue that that makes him a declared candidate. There is also an issue of notability and historic relevance to have his name listed; he is already on the NH page and his own article page contains his NH ballot entry.--Screwball23 talk 02:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a declaration. Putting one's name on the ballot is enough to be considered a candidate. He has a wikipedia article and therefore is notable. Most reasonable candidates do not believe they can win, but hope to influence the discourse. We have references that say Cain is out, we don't have these for Greenleaf. Nevertheless, Cain is still listed as a candidate albeit withdrawn.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Stay on point here. Herman Cain is on the ballot in several states but is not running a campaign and has no intention to run for Prez. That does not change the fact that he was a declared candidate until his withdrawal. Now, Greenleaf's papers prove nothing about him being a declared candidate. Seriously, Sharkey made the list with his FEC filing, and you even used that as a reference to prove that he was a candidate. It was that easy, and 'you used that as a burden of proof then, so now, I want you to be a man of integrity'; check the list here: [4] I don't see Greenleaf here, because he is not a declared candidate. He is just a politician who paid $1000 to have his name on a ballot.--Screwball23 talk 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Candidates only have to file with the FEC if they raise a certain amount of money. It is a determining factor but it is not an excluding one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. Sharkey didn't raise much money (aside from a few wikipedians, probably ;-) and that didn't stop him from filing with FEC. Face it, the only proof you have is from Greenleaf himself, and he is spelling it out clearly that he is not running for president. Now own up to the truth and quit wasting more of my -- and possibly your -- valuable time.--Screwball23 talk 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything I typed above is true. Sharkey did not have to file, but the fact that he did shows that he was running. On the other hand, Greenleaf put himself on the ballot, which shows that he is a candidate for the New Hampshire Primary. Any candidate for the New Hampshire Primary is a candidate for president. Excluding a notable candidate does not make sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your arguments are just not cutting it; I made it clear that this is not a debate on whether he is notable enough to get his own page; he is a state senator, and I have no issue with him being on that page. However, on this page, the Republican primaries for the president of the United States is being covered; a single state does not make someone a candidate for president, and you have no evidence to back up this claim of yours that "a candidate for New Hampshire is a candidate for president". That is absolute nonsense, and I think it's one of the most desperate attempts I've ever seen, so I am going to close this conversation. Argue with someone else, because you clearly aren't listening.--Screwball23 talk 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Being on the primary ballot in at least one state certainly does make someone a candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any rationale or are you going to just keep repeating yourself again and again with the same illogical arguments?--Screwball23 talk 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

potential Occupy movement resource

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

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

Post-Primary Drop-Outs

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

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

Cutting and pasting fun

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

Resource?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colours used on the map

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

The 2012 Election Cycle - NPOV?

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

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

Definitely POV! Sounds just like an op-ed. It should either be re-written in a more neutral manner or removed altogether.--141.152.79.93 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The passage has been removed. Not only was it POV in tone and unencyclopedic in style, it was unsourced as well.--JayJasper (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bachmann shoudl be put back in the gallery

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

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

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

Why don't we go to the convention set by the 2008 primary page? That one had John McCain on top, and listed all the states he won, as well as the 2nd and 3rd place wins by other candidates.--Screwball23 talk 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, hindsight, as they say, is 20–20. In mid-January, there was no infobox (except whatever a since-deleted "Future US elections" provided) and eight candidates listed in descending order of delegate votes (Romney was first). Maybe closer to – or after – the convention, more people can be trimmed from the 2012 article also. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that the "Future US elections" template was simply a notice that the article involved the election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible to add more candidates to sidebar?

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

NPOV

The intro to this article has several NPOV issues.

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

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

  • current total vote count,
  • current committed delegate count,
  • current total delegate count,
  • alphabetical (the old standby)
  • something else... whatever
My preference would be alphabetical because a) it's easier to maintain, and b) it doesn't carry a possibly POV implication that the sequence chosen is more meaningful than the others. The disadvantage, of course, is that it's the only choice that doesn't give the casual reader a quick visual clue as to how the race is going.
I didn't include Michele Bachmann, even though she finished ahead of Huntsman, because she's officially withdrawn, but it's only one more entry and can be easily added to be consistent with the "Major candidates" section.
I arbitrarily listed delegate counts according to AP/NYT and CNN, primarily because they're the numbers that were being batted back and forth. Again, more sources – to a reasonable number – can be added following the example there.
(And I agree with the implication in the last sentence of Marktaff's post above that for the moment all the numbers should be zero, but that wouldn't have made for a particularly useful formatting demo.) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that alpha order is the most neutral order for the info box, and it should list the current candidates. I think the candidates section in the main body needs to be reworked so that it:
  • Tallies the performance of each candidate (states, delegates, votes), regardless of whether they are still in the race or not.
  • Integrates the time dimension, so it is easy to see how and when this progressed from a 10 way race to eventually a single winner. Maybe we use alpha order for current candidates (left-justified), followed by withdrawn candidates, ordered by withdrawal date (most recent withdrawal to earliest withdrawal).
Also, it would be nice to have a running delegate count, ordered by confirmed bound delegates. We can add a blurb above the count noting that we use bound delegates only, because projected delegate counts vary amongst reliable news sources, and that projections of unbound delegates are subject to change as the race progresses. Links to these tallies would make great off-site links from within that section. Some type of bar graph may be helpful with respect to the confirmed delegate counts, with the 50% plus one goal noted on it. Marktaff (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call AP's numbers biased, but they are wrong. (CNN's are also). These states are not like the projections on the Dem side in 2008, where all delegates through the tiers of caucus selection were bound, and it was reasonable to expect the numbers to mostly hold up. Iowa's delegates chosen at the precinct level are not bound, and may or may not have been chosen based on the vote in that precinct. There's been a lot of commentary this week that the AP and CNN numbers are very misleading at best, if not totally wrong. Simon12 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WSJ resource

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

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

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

Greenleaf is not running

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

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

Actually, Greenleaf has filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Screwball's entire argument was based on the fact that Greenleaf did not file with the FEC and now that he has filed, Screwball has decided to revert again. I'm afraid the only way to end his disruption may be to ban him from this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, you didn't even acknowledge my argument, which was based on several factors, including evidence you gave me supporting the fact that he was not a declared candidate. That was in documents you provided, and still you editwarred me for no reason while refusing to use the talk page. The idea that you have the authority to try and block someone is absolute nonsense: you have editwarred and showed ownership over this page and many election pages for a long time now, and you def need to cool it. Regarding this FEC document, I have read it and am concluding in favor of leaving Greenleaf on. I thank JayJasper for providing the document, and have to say shame on you, Mr. Saturn, for providing such misleading documents that not only supported my view but seriously weakened yours, while you refused to even read it. That was a disgusting move, and I think you should know better.--Screwball23 talk 04:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Final vote counts

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

Delegate tally in infobox

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

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

As has been noted above, and in other places, CNN is wrong about the allocation of Iowa delegates. As also noted in the article, the Iowa caucus was completely non-binding, and therefore any delegate projection from Iowa makes no sense.Simon12 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have it be in popular vote, I believe that is how other primaries go by. Once it is over, candidates with less than 5% would be removed from the infobox. Thunderstone99 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Popular vote is misleading though - it's possible to be the leader in cumulative popular vote but trail in the delegate count. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No verifiable support for this statement

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

Super PAC resource

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

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

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

Very confusing for the non-initiated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Jack - that's exactly what I needed to hear. Now Americans, all I said was that the system seemed impossible to understand, including to the average American - stop being so touchy. And finally, I knew there were articles on these subjects, it's just that they're so dispersed and long it make it an impossible task to grasp the whole thing. But thanks to Jack I do now. One last question though: who can vote? Anyone? Registered party members? Other requirement? 131.251.252.193 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Who can vote depends on the local rules. In some states only partymembers can vote, in others independents can become party affiliated at the door and change back to independent on the way out, in others states they cant. In some states independents can vote freely and in some states voters registrated with other parties can even vote. Primaries are often held by the state for all interested parties (most time that means 2 parties and in a few states 3 parties) and then the local parliements and goverments decides the rules. They can change from presidentiel election to presidentiel election.
The RNC have put out this nice document that sums up the basic rules for this election cycle: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76404080/2012-RNC-Delegate-Summary
Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Huntsman is dropping out

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

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

Can one put time when this sinzino drop out? With today precision rounding to one day is lame unprecize, and introduce huge incertainty into our prbabilistic calculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Uh, what? P.S: Is there a way to restore Perry and Gingrich on the sidebar, or does it have to be a multiple of 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumbersomeCucumber (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I logged over to mention Huntsman throwing support to Romney, and his picture is already moved (well done). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegates vs. Popular Vote

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

The actual order doesn't mean that much at this point. The national popular vote totals mean nothing and always have. Wait until sundayEricl (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
They were prior ordered by the popular vote estimate--including in the 2008 page (Mitt Romney received 1.3% more of the popular vote but 7 estimated delegates less than Mike Huckabee). I think the order should have Romney, then Paul, then Santorum. --67.248.246.4 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

FiveThirtyEight resource

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

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

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

election monitoring

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

Article needs a section running current candidate fundraising totals

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

Minor Candidates in Infobox

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

Parties in the Infobox

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

Colbert

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

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

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

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

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

I don't really want a "revert war"

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

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

Thank you for your POV. However, it has no place in this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hay Ericl I am all with you, but there has been war about this topic on the talkpage as long as I have followed it. It is very subjective who is included of the less seriouse candidates and who is not. My guess is that different peoples petcandidate are included if they care to use time to go to war about them.
You are right, all or nothing. So my suggestion is that you simply included all the candidates from the different ballots in this list. You can find them in the result article: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. That would maybe start a seriouse discussion about what candidates to included and who not. Of course this article is mostly made by american, but they sometime forget that it is made to read in all the world. Happy war Ericl :) ---User: Jack Bornholm 23:06, 14 January 2012 (CET)
It is not subjective. It is very clear. A candidate is included if they are notable. Case closed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is. However, if a candidate has suspended his/her campaign, like Michelle Bachmann, then they're put in a different section. Putting Greenleaf and McMillion in that part is perfectly fine. Same with Vermin Supreme. the "microcandidates" don't hold press conferences withdrawing, they just walk away. As I've said umpteen times....Ericl (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. You need a source for it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

potential item "Newt Gingrich call Mitt Romney a liar"

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

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

Delegate tally

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

Could someone with the necessary permissions go to the Infobox template and create a new line for "delegates"? That's a no-brainer and needed for an infobox on presidential elections (at least for the nomination process). I've used the "electors" line for now since that's the closest one available.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You also need to pick a reliable source. There are already discrepancies, with some sources allocating Iowa's delegates, but most agreeing the caucus was totally non-binding, and delegate counts from Iowa won't be known for months. And do you include the superdelegates? Simon12 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Delegate counts are the only metric which matters here. States carried and percentage of the popular vote may be interesting, but they have no bearing on who will win the nomination. The problem with unreliable and conflicting sources for delegate counts is a serious one. I suggest listing a range of delegate counts with citations to justify both the min and max of the range. Mcarling (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Article needs to mention 'super delegates' (unpledged delegates). Here is a ref.: "Out of 2,380 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2012, 463 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 463, 123 are members of the Republican National Committee." [6] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate number

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

It also, if you follow the link, gives very different numbers than what this article currently shows. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Other sources give different estimates, for example MSNBC gives the count as: Gingrich 23, Romney 18, Santorum 11, Paul 6. With these differing estimates, wouldn't it be wisest to give the count as min. and max. delegates? --89.27.8.236 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it would be wisest to count min. & max. delegates.--JayJasper (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
That delegate count should be removed - any source that considers there to be "pledged" delegates from Iowa is, by definition, not reliable - even if they are CNN. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
We should only have actual delegates number in this article, since Wikipedia is not a news organisation. For now New Hampshire and South Carolina have elected bound delegates for the convention, no more. Some of the 132 RNC delegates have pledge themselve and they can be put in too. But no Iowa delegates are elected and they will be unbound - when they are elected - and can then pledge themselve if they so wish. And since Huntsman technical havent withdrawn, but have suspended his campaign, he still have two bound delegates from New Hampshire - For now!
My point is: This delegate projecting is news more than encyclopidia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. If they're showing Iowa numbers, they're wrong, and should not be considered reliable. And the 2 Huntsman delegate should stay with Huntsman. Simon12 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the projected numbers in the Wikipedia table (under Candidates#Major Contenders) we list Gingrich has 28 projected delegates and Romney has 14. But our link to Washington Post (under external links) lists Romney with 33 and Gingrich with 25. FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AP resource today (Ref. Environmentalists)

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

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

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

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

Discrepancy in Calendar section

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

FIXED. Seems to have been fixed. Out table now correctly shows Texas voting on April 3, which is correct.[7] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Super Tuesday

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

It's noontime here in sunny California (eight hours ahead of London) and no one has commented here on TALK or changed the paragraph on our Super Tuesday paragraph. In researching, I find excellent information on the Super Tuesday Wikipedia page, and so I tried to summarize and add info of interest today, for the 2012 campaigns of candidates. What do you think? My effort was intended to be good, but only "First Draft". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Lynnette (wife) read the paragraphs and say they are "super"! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Senior editors may improve them.

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

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

Another way to list the ‘other early states’ would be ::
=== Other states voting before Super Tuesday ===
Maine (24); Colorado (36); Minnesota (40); Missouri (52);
Arizona (29); Michigan (30); and Washington (43).
And then separate out any state as needed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Racial undertone

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

I suppose its true in that they are going from 50% of white voters to 60% of white voters, or whatever the case is.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_6&oldid=1142750147"