Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Conservatism will win and Romney knows it

Some of us see that the Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, is more conservative in his heart than many in the Senate that were and are in the Republican race, including Gingrich and Santorum. I was on the WP page of Callista Gingrich and saw a nice 'see also' entry for Conservatism with a nice icon/logo. Hence, I have added it to our 'See also' section. Pick any pillar of Conservatism and you will see Mitt Romney defending it today. {Forget prior Liberal nit-picking against him.} That was then, this is now. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless he wears his heart on his sleeve, we'll never see it. I'm not sure if most people know what Conservative means anymore. There was a time it meant that you stand for honor and integrity, a set of unwavering values that do not change with the wind, and while you were not afraid of war, you were not afraid of peace either. Today's "conservative" is nothing like that, and Mitt Romney is no such animal. -- Avanu (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue was never whether Romney is conservative right now. He is criticized by many on the left on the right for his inconsistent "conservatism". In 1994, he claimed to be a fiscal conservative but a social liberal, even claiming to be more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Notably, on the issue of abortion, he described himself as "pro-choice" and said he would "never waver from that position".

I give him more of a grace when it comes to what he did as governor, since he was in a liberal state and obviously would have passed left-leaning legislation. But he continued advocating for his health-care plan as a "national blueprint" as recently as 2009.

Furthermore, the primaries have seen essentially the many sectors of the Republican Party compete with each other. Romney mainly embodies the fiscal conservative wing, in touch with the business community. Gingrich aligns more with the neoconservative side, as he often boasts about his friendship with Reagan and speaks quite a bit on foreign policy. Santorum, of course, focused his campaign more on the socially conservative side, but also tried to portray himself as "the man of the people", often advocating a "bottom-up" approach to solving the economic crisis. Ron Paul is the libertarian side, isolationist and very strict on fiscal issues. Herman Cain I think represented the new Tea Party side, acting as "the people's voice" in his very casual mode of speaking. So when talking about who is the most "Conservative", that term is very complicated. All of the 5 people I mentioned above claimed to be the most "conservative" man in the race. Mr. Anon515 15:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to LionelT for moving the 'Conservative' portal box over to the right. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do you actually get an honest analysis of a candidate's actions? Charles above says "Pick any pillar of Conservatism and you will see Mitt Romney defending it", yet when I pick an issue and compare it to a conservative value, I have to ask, in what way did this guy defend it? What are these pillars that these people supposedly defend? Why is it so uncommon to see any source actually take the time to determine what these folks do? From what I have seen so far, Mitt Romney supports the expansion of government-run health insurance, if not at the federal level, at least at the state level. This doesn't sound like a pro-business approach, unless you feel that handing out insurance to people helps business in general, however this also presupposes that insurance is a legitimate government function (rather than a private enterprise). The media hardly talks about any of Mitt Romney's other actions that might be considered pro-business, and he doesn't seem to either, except in very general terms about how he made lots of money at Bain and "fixed" the Olympics and how he "fixed" Massachusetts. But am I legitimately supposed to believe that only one man made Bain all this money, and only one man made the Olympics run smoothly, and only one man made an entire state's economy better? I'd like to see some proof of extraordinary claims. Would Romney avoid war and make peace? His words don't seem to indicate that. Would Romney support conservative social values? His past deeds and actions don't seem to indicate that. Would Romney deal honestly and speak truth? His words change as the times change, so how can I say? So perhaps on the subject of "pillars", to paraphrase the Princess Bride, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Romneycare (and by extension Obamacare) are not "government-run" healthcare plans, as they mainly rely on the private sector. Unless you are talking about expansions of Medicare, in which case it is not politically viable for a politician in the United States to oppose Medicare. Mr. Anon515 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding foreign policy, I'd actually give Romney credit for being careful not to specify his plans. Because areas of foreign policy require assistance from foreign countries, it is very difficult for politicians to follow through completely with their foreign policy ideas. Take Nixon, Carter, or the first Bush's promises, for example. Or even more recently, take Obama's promises. He wanted to end the Iraq War quickly, but there were a lot of struggles with the Iraqi government to get a solid plan to withdraw troops. Or take a look at Guantanamo bay. Recently there was a terrorist released from there who the Iraqi goverment refused to hand over to the US (he is currently free, as opposed to Obama's promise to get him prosecuted in civilian courts). Or look at Afghanistan, where Obama promised a quick defeat of the Taliban, but the Taliban are getting stronger every day. Obama has had great success against Al-Qaida, but even there Pakistan is not cooperating very well.

Romney's current foreign policy plan differs very little from what the President already has set in plan. The main difference is policy towards Iran, and even there Romney has not clarified all of his positions. However, he is wise not to make too many clear promises in this area, as they are very unlikely to come completely true. Mr. Anon515 01:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

|}

Color of Utah on the first USA map

Our first US map is entitled, “First place finishes by plurality of delegates”. Utah should be red, not grey. Other WP (Wikipedia) pages use the same map, and an edit will reveal that it is stored as: [double-braces here] Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 [double-braces here].

Other states currently not pledged are MT(26 delegates), NE(35), and LA(5 for Romney, 10 for Santorum, and 28 unpledged), and are correct to be coloured grey.

Here is what we read from Green Papers for Utah
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/UT-R

“The Republican Presidential Primary shall be open to registered Republicans, and unaffiliated voters requesting a Republican ballot who affiliate at the polls as a Republican. [Utah Republican Party Bylaws 7.0.C] Tuesday 26 June 2012: All 40 of Utah's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes statewide in today's Presidential Primary. [Utah Republican Party Bylaws 7.0.B] The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Utah's Republican Party, will attend the convention as pledged delegates by virtue of their position. On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary, but the delegation shall not be bound on any subsequent ballots. If the candidate requests in writing that the state party not bind its national delegates or if the candidate is not a candidate at the national convention ... then the national delegates shall not be ... bound on the first ballot. [Utah Republican Party Bylaws 7.0.B]”

PS: Notice what we can learn about ‘bound’ and ‘pledged’ delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Red? Red is not one of the colors used, you might want to have a color-blindness test done. I had one this year, so I know red is not one of the colors used. Stopde (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — [[Or whatever the Romney-color is. Thanks for noting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)]]

It is instructive to double-click on the last column of our Table to sort the states by unpledged delegate count. PA has 32 and 12 other states have unpledged delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why Utah is still 'gray' in the first and last US map? Romney won the delegates, did he not? Does anyone or any source know of uncertainty? I do a GoogeSearch and find no results: "No results found for irregularities in republican delegates 2012 +Utah" FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Romney won all of Utah's delegates after the primary. It should be colored red. J390 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done for the first map! TNKS. ... ... ... [ _ ] Not changed yet on the last map (Margin of win). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooppps! Utah is back to gray; and Nebraska can turn to red (which it is not); Montana and Louisiana are correctly gray. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Red is NOT used on the map at all. You have color-blindness. If you want to see an example of red, check the first two bars of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e9b7cfb396e6e3cfa78b8f3f6d87f7c9.png Also there is red surrounding the text of "2012 U.S. presidential election" and red surrounding "Other races · House · Senate · gubernatorial · Vice-Presidential (Dem. · Rep.)" Stopde (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

— [[Or whatever the Romney-color is. What would you call it? Thanks for noting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)]]

It is orange. Stopde (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done again. OK! Utah and Nebraska are 'red'/Romney; and the only two gray-coded states are Montana and Louisiana, correct. There are six states coded for Santorum; three for Paul (MN, IA, and ME); and two for Gingrich. I'm sorry that one province is not coded-yellow. They are all Romney/red. And the pictures of the four major Republican-race candidates look great! Under their photo-pictures are the delegate counts: Romney(1,438); Santorum(248); Paul(166); and Gingrich(142). In my humble opinion (which is subtly obvious to all) had the race been closer, attention in major media would have continued with Ron Paul and his agitating supporters. As I read recent Ron Paul comments, he is liking their agitation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, red is not used on the map. You should have a color-blindness test done. Stopde (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

— [[Or whatever the Romney-color is. What would you call it? It is not 'Orange'. Thanks for noting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)]]

My wife says it is orange. That's the first map; the second map has Utah in gray. Why is that? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is orange, your wife is right! Stopde (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the image isn't being parsed correctly. The changes have been put in as of June 28th, 2012 but I have no idea why it's not processing properly in the main image. [1] if you look down, it's already in there which shows up here [2] ViriiK (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The map at Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Overview_of_results looks identical but with Utah filled in with 'shades of red' for Romney. Maybe someone could ask the WP Helpdesk. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. They're the same exact images though. The problem is on Wikipedia's end and it seems to be a parsing issue. I suppose I could use the same exact size as the other page that's working correctly. ViriiK (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the issue hopefully. What I did was reduce the image by 1 pixel to force the Wikipedia server to process a new image based on the change. Should work on your end as well. ViriiK (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — TNKS, Looks great .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to the end of the primary race and start of the general election race

The Republican primary race is not over until there is a Republican Nominee, not just presumptive nominee.

Here is an interesting timeframe list [3] today from NBC looking to the VP pick:

• Countdown to GOP convention: 19 days
• Countdown to Dem convention: 26 days
• Countdown to 1st presidential debate: 56 days
• Countdown to VP debate: 64 days
• Countdown to 2nd presidential debate: 69 days
• Countdown to 3rd presidential debate: 75 days
• Countdown to Election Day: 90 days

They don't know as much as we do, but it's interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to two discussions sections just closed, take discussion over to:
Political positions of Mitt Romney — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's official: Paul Ryan is Romney's VP choice. I got an email from the Obama campaign this morning confirming it, and sources show Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman were told that they were not selected. Though he does not appear it, Romney is rather old for a presidential candidate, at the age of 65. The much younger Ryan (42) may allow his campaign to be better in touch with younger voters. Not to mention Ryan's popularity with the Tea Party movement. Mr. Anon515 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is monumental! It shows Romney puts America above the reserved choices suggested by some. It puts the emphasis on the Republican budget plan passed by the House and the conservative win of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker with his statement of fiscal responsibility. It shows Romney is serious about reversing $16trillion in debt, and Tea Party people (like Glenn Beck) must be pleased! As Paul Ryan debates Joe Biden, America will differentiate between fact and spin already begun. [Seniors will not be forced off Social Security and Medicare like Democrats are saying. Media points this out. Those age 65 and over have a choice to stay in the current program or control a percentage of their investments.] It does not need to go into this article, but rather in WP articles that follow the general election, after the Republican National Convention. The selection of Paul Ryan will win the election because "It is still the Economy, stupid", (to resurrect Clinton's motto). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC) You've seemed rather partisan (and forum-ey) lately in your posts here, Charles. Its great that you are so convinced of Romney's saintly motives, but I can't see how it really means anything. Unless the office of Vice-President suddenly has gained actual power beyond the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, I'm not seeing how this actually affects public policy unless Romney wins, and then dies. -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Avanu, the Vice President's power is very flexible since the President does have the authority to delegate all or certain presidential powers to the Vice President as well as other members of the branch. Bush did this very often with Dick Cheney however I've not seen it happen with President Obama in regards to Joe Biden unless someone can correct me on this. Now it seems to be that Romney would (big if here) delegates powers to Paul Ryan (only if they win election) regarding Ryan's favorite subject. ViriiK (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Exactly what power would he delegate? Budget-buster-in-Chief? Given Romney's behavior during his campaign, I don't see him as a man to let go of the reins too much. -- Avanu (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC) They do not let go of the reins. They simply delegate authority and if the President disagrees with his subordinates, he can simply reverse it as it is his right to do so. Any person who has been delegated authority can either be reversed by the President or in the rare case the court system (depending on how valid the case is). ViriiK (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) "Conservatism wins every time it is tried!" — I'm a partisan Conservative. The importance of Ryan is to help win the general election. Sarah Palin says that there are a lot of people like her who will have Ryan's back. [4] "We will call out the media for their lies and distortions as they try to thrash his reputation and his record," she said. — McCain held Palin back; Romney won't hold Ryan back. — This article writes about the race before the Nomination confirmation at the end of August. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC) As for "Conservatism wins every time it is tried", I'd love to see a real example of that where it doesn't involve simply rhetoric. Liberals call foul on neocons all the time because it is a false conservatism. Liberals attack capitalism because they don't see a difference between corporatism and capitalism, and Conservatives in Name Only support corporatism all the time. Diogenes would have a hard time finding an honest conservative given the state of things today. While I fully agree with Charles that Conservatism should win every time, I fail to see it practiced by most. Perhaps I have no idea what conservatism is and the rest of the misguided world is right and I am wrong. But I see conservatism as supporting liberty as laid out by our Constitution. Things like: * Freedom of opportunity, in business, and in the pursuit of personal goals. * Support for a well-regulated militia, and the right of each person to bear arms in defense of their nation and their property and family. * Support of each citizen to speak their mind, whether it is a popular view or not, and to assemble freely and peaceably where they might choose. * Genuine popular support for wars, not acting through fear and without popular consent. * Spending within our means, not just on programs for the poor, but on all things, including our military. * Support for the family, and not simply in decrying those with different ideas of what a family is, but genuinely and personally held beliefs, which would include a disdain for divorce and a disdain for any form of violence against women, men, or children. I could go on, but in all these things, those who call themselves Conservative have been hypocrites. Should I follow the crowd now and say "BUT the liberals are worse"? No. Because I don't care what the 'unwashed masses' do. If you claim to be a person of principle, then act as such, or don't claim to be principled. Liberals aren't *all* wrong, nor are Conservatives *all* right. But if no one is serious about doing the right thing, what hope do we have? -- Avanu (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Well put, Avanu. Definitions for conservatism seem quite varied of late, but no single one has "won every time it is tried." Life is a little more equivocal than that. If it is true that McCain held Palin back, it's because he had no choice. The woman was a loose cannon and frankly an idiot. By the time he realized that, it was too late. I do believe Ryan has been more thoroughly vetted, but time will tell. I will say it's interesting that Romney has already distanced himself from that which made Ryan famous- his 2010 budget. But have no fear! They both agree on the same (and ever-so-vague) "direction" and "path" to take the country! :p I'll also point out that this article does not cover all events before the Convention. It covers events up to July 14, except for any decisions applied retroactively by the RNC with regards to those state delegations where credentials challenges have been filed. For example, we're not going to change the delegate counts based on how the roll call goes. Anything related to the Romney-Ryan ticket belongs in Mitt's campaign, convention, or general election articles. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I'll also point out that since Obama is the presumptive nominee of Democrats (along with Biden) and is attacking Romney-Ryan now, we see overlap between the primary elections and the general election. He is not attacking Santorum or Paul. What does this say about our WP Article here? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another discussion needs to be closed. Per Wikipedia talk page guidelines, this is not appropriate discussion. Speculation, politically, as to the effects of Ryan's pick and what this might mean for the future of the campaign, convention, and eventually the election, is probably the boundary of appropriate discussion. Debating the quality of Ryan as a pick, however, is not. Mr. Anon515 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not going to make any bets (since I am no Republican), but I'd say that politically, Rand Paul would be Romney's best choice. Rand Paul would attract the support of many libertarians (Rand's endorsement alone has gotten a significant amount of the senior Paul's supporters to turn over to Romney), even though his foreign policy stances are consistent with the party's main positions. While Rand might be categorized as extreme, his popularity within the Tea Party will solidify support of Romney from the right, and help put to rest accusations of Romney being "moderate". One might be skeptical of a Tea Party leader being chosen again as the VP positions, but Palin's main detractions from McCain's campaign were due to manner of her attacks on Obama, which was inconsistent with McCain's more positive campaign. Although I'd still put, bets on Obama for the general election, I'd say that Paul as a VP choice will gain much of the libertarian vote, which could tip states like Colorado and New Mexico into tossups rather than lean Obama. Mr. Anon515 00:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary Election and General Election overlap

Because there is no uncertainty, Obama-Biden vs Romney-Ryan has already begun, obviously. So how doe this affect our WP article here that covers to the end of the Republican convention at the end of August in two weeks? SuperPACs for Obama attack Romney (1) as being the opposite of Robin Hood (who robbed from government to give to the poor) and called it Romney-hood to rob from the poor and give to the rich, like Romney; (2) killing a wife with cancer because the Obama-supporter who ran Bain after Romney left laid off her husband after the steel worker had been given the option of healthcare; and (3) using blood money at Bain. . . . Paul Ryan explained how Bain Capital under Romney saved companies and created jobs.

By contrast, the Romney campaign runs a simple yet truthful ad and media/Obama/Democrats call it an attack ad.

Reminder FYI: [www.mittromney.com/forms/right-choice] . . . (includes text and a short video clip) . . .

"In 1996, President Clinton signed bipartisan legislation to reform welfare by requiring work. Sixteen years later, President Obama quietly gutted this landmark law. Mitt Romney will restore the bipartisan reforms to welfare and move our country in the right direction."
Conservatism wins every time it is tried, and Romney-Ryan will remain conservative. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see and understand the points about not all things going into our WP article here; and we have shown restraint. However, ours is the main article on the race and readers come here for info. Visit relating WP articles and you will see ours is clearly the main article on the race to the White House. Editors here have done a great job, (in particular Jack Bornholm of Denmark with writing, table, counts), plus others on important maps and details. Our article here can always be revised, condensed or others merged in — the victors write the history when it is history. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Further, I'm saying that by positioning to win the general election (with Ryan and grassroots Conservatives), Romney is cementing winning the Republican primary race if and when it is finalized. I anticipate adding one or two sentences as appropriate. Feel free to amplify the end of our article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Replying to a couple of your points.

I'd say things about the convention should be noted in the appropriate article for the convention. However, until Ron Paul's lawsuits over his delegates have been settled, aspects of the primary are still subject to discussion.

While your points about Obama's campaign pertain to the general election, I'd like to note that there have been false statements on both sides of the campaign; for example, the welfare reform statement was recently debunked (the President was actually responding to requests by Republican governors over the last 7 years, including Romney himself in 2006). Falsehoods and dirty attacks are part of all campaigns, and we'll probably be seeing a lot more of them over the next couple of months.

The main part of the article that will need to be updated by the convention is winner of states by delegate count. If Paul wins his lawsuit, this will change how the map will work (as of now, though, he will not be on the "ballot" at the convention).

Finally, while your opinion may be that Romney is a superior candidate, you simply cannot say from a factual standpoint that he is currently "winning" against the President. Realclearpolitic's current average shows Obama currently leading by 4 points, averaged from each of the polls. The President also holds a sizable advantage in swing states, although Ryan may tilt Wisconsin more towards Romney. So while you and I may disagree over what the outcome of the race is, you cannot say that as of right now, Romney is in a position to win, at least in the context of this article.

I'd also like to thank you for the help you've given with the articles, Charles. You certainly were valuable during the whole fiasco with the Paul supporters, and while we may disagree politically, it was a pleasure to work with you to improve this article. Mr. Anon515 00:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Ron Paul in the news (acceptable references, like The New York Times (or FoxNews) ) ?

FYI: I've added the following sentence to the WP article about the Ron Paul campaign: "The week before the Republican National Convention, Romney held 1,399 pledged delegates, 255 more than a simple majority." If you want to, you could join the TALK regarding the Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Delegate_count. The Future and Present are quickly becoming History. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul rally Sunday [5] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to the Republican Convention

The 2012 Republican National Convention starts Monday, one week from today! We will finally know about Montana and Louisiana, among other very interesting details concerning the Republican primary race. Will Ron Paul have a tent set up for his people to rally separately? Will Sarah Palin speak at convention since she has not been invited to speak? When will Romney speak? When will Ryan speak? Will Romney-Ryan appear on stage together? What surprises can be expected, and will rules be adjudicated by the rules committee never to see the podium? Will the "First Vote" occur on Monday or Tuesday? Answers are important to this article and also 2012_Republican_National_Convention Make them great. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palin hasn't been invited to speak at the 2012 GOP convention, and I really doubt that she'll even show up in Tampa. The nominated candidate never speaks until the end of a convention, and Ryan should speak the night before him (Romney). The two candidates for President & VP are always seen together at the convention. A bigger story will be whether or not Tropical Storm (Hurricane?) Issac will be invited to "speak" in Tampa.  ;) Guy1890 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Louisiana and Montana go to Romney?

Our text says the following (inconsistent with our map):

• Montana voters voted most for Romney—their delegation is not finalized.
• Louisiana voters voted most for Santorum, but delegation is not finalized.

Does not match our first map (showing both for Romney). Change text or map?
Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm missing what you're seeing, Charles. The first map (delegate plurality) shows both LA & MT in grey, not for Romney. The second map (popular vote) correctly has MT for Romney & LA for Santorum. The MT delegation will never change from grey because it was and will never be bound. It is true, however, that all but maybe one are state party insiders expected to vote for Romney. The LA deal struck last night, if upheld by credentials, gives LA's plurality (excluding the supers, like all the other states) to Ron Paul. The text is confusing though. The MT delegation has been "finalized" in that the delegates have all been elected & credentialed, it's just that they are officially unpledged. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: never mind, someone just changed that plurality map. It is incorrect now- neither MT nor LA have officially gone to Romney. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I liked the two lines under the first map (now removed) that explained Montana an Louisiana. There is a discussion over at Talk:2012_Republican_National_Convention#The_current_map talking about the Rules Committee meeting today. Any news? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[6] First there is the Rules committee; and then there is the Credentials committee. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I elaborated on earlier, first comes the RNC Committee on Contests, then the full RNC, then the Credentials Committee, then the full National Convention. So Credentials is the last realistic opportunity for either side to mount a successful appeal. I posted a fuller breakdown of the LA deal at that other talk page discussion you linked to. The Rules Committee doesn't directly have anything to do with these state challenges, but given that most are going Paul's way, there were people on there who tried to raise the threshold from 5 to 15 states, and failed. (I'm posting from a different IP right now so I'm confusing the autosign, sorry about that. One day very soon when this is all over I'll get an account. In the meantime, I'll limit my posting to just the occasional update.) 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Where is a good source of current info we can quote? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney currently has all but 17 of the 46 delegates from the Louisiana group. [7] ViriiK (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Montana [8] Montana delegates will be voting for Romney as a bloc, said Montana Republican Party Executive Director Bowen Greenwood. They were elected as Romney delegates by state delegates at the state GOP convention in June. So that puts them firmly in the Romney camp. ViriiK (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The map is colored based on delegates allocated per the primaries & caucuses, not any last minute changes that may happen at the time of the roll call. Otherwise we'd have to change, for example, South Carolina & Georgia to grey or Romney since Gingrich released his delegates. As I posted about earlier, the Montana convention was split almost down the middle between Paul & Romney state delegates, but Romney had the bare majority so scooped up all of them (except for one or two of the alternates). Sort of the opposite of what happened in Maine, but the differences in MT are that the state party promised to cut Paul in to about a fifth of the delegation (per the primary vote), then changed their minds when they saw they had the majority, and the Paul campaign didn't decide to make up problems after the fact to fabricate in front of the RNC.. Anyway, long story, but, yes, that delegation does indeed support Romney. So while technically MT should remain grey because they never formally pledged or bound themselves, I'm ok with coloring it for Romney if others agree that is the best thing to do, since there appears to be a consensus that we shouldn't leave any states grey for aesthetic reasons. LA should be yellow not orange because Santorum was awarded, and is still entitled to 10 delegates from the primary. The other delegates split 17 Paul, 16 Romney, per the breakdown I posted at the RNC talk page. We do not take the 3 supers into account for the map, since they almost always remain unpledged until the convention (although there are other reasons to exclude them, as discussed a long time ago). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even follow the above story? 17 of the delegates goes to Paul, the remaining goes to Romney per the redistribution of the delegates after the fact. Now MT is 100% full slate Romney (doesn't matter if they're unbounded since they've declared their intentions to vote as a group for Romney) and Louisiana is Romney-majority delegation. ViriiK (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read that story. I also know the exact breakdown of the district & at-large delegates. The bottom line total is 17 Paul, 16 Romney, 10 Santorum, 3 unpledged RNC. 17 > 16. Did the deal retroactively strip Santorum of the 10 delegates he won from the primary? Since the answer to that is no, then the plurality belongs to Ron Paul. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. That's what you get for selective reading. 29 are Romney's per The Texas congressman will get 17 of the Louisiana’s 46 delegates in the compromise, said Charlie Davis, who served as Paul’s campaign chairman in Louisiana. The rest of the state’s delegates are expected to support Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive nominee. Thank you and that will be demonstrated at the Monday ballot vote [9]. ViriiK (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as anal or biased about it. I'm just advocating consistency. If you want to count Santorum's delegates and the supers for Romney (as that article is assuming will happen), then we have to go back and start applying that to a bunch of other states, like SC. I'm sure come Monday a plurality of SC delegates will vote for Romney, but that doesn't necessarily mean we change that state's color on the map. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul loses Maine

Is it okay to update the article? The national Republican party disqualified 11 Ron Paul delegates, giving Romney a plurality in the Maine state delegation to the RNC. --86.129.204.80 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just wait until Monday. The RNC just pissed off a lot of people with that decision, including the governor, and I know it's going to be appealed to the floor. If the delegation boycotts and walks out then Paul won't get any votes from Maine. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Isaac may want us to wait till Tuesday. Rush Limbaugh suggests it will not be a hurricane but rather a lot of wind and rain in a tropical storm. Still, leaders postponed starting the convention until Tuesday and have moved the nominating procedure from Monday to Tuesday. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The birth of Isaac's children:

"Two nations are in your womb,

and two peoples from within you will be separated;

one people will be stronger than the other,

and the older will serve the younger."

Maybe one day, the old Republican guard will be serving the new Paul ideals. They have already begun the process of changing the platform, and they had to fight and fight to prevent Paul from gaining ground now. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ron Paul Convention concluded Sunday (yesterday)

Now that the one-day rally convention is over[10] some of the editors that have been so passionate about Ron Paul could add a paragraph to Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012. There has been nothing of note to report for a few months, and now there is. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/08/27/ron-paul-rally-draws-11000-high-emotion

http://www.policymic.com/articles/13502/ron-paul-sun-dome-speech-in-tampa-how-paul-has-already-left-his-mark-on-the-rnc

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0822/Is-Ron-Paul-getting-a-raw-deal-from-the-RNC

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/08/27/ron-paul-supporters-assail-romney-and-gop-for-alienating-latinos/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/without-their-leader-ron-pauls-fans-flagging/2012/08/26/c13f1356-ef3b-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html

Yep. -- Avanu (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I put additional ref.leads over at Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegation changes made at convention

Notice that section 3.2 is added for changes made at convention. I suggest we leave the table as it is now, going into convention, and add further changes in this new section under the table. Reasons for this are (1) some editors here feel the 'primaries' are over with the caucus and primaries ending in all 50 states, DC, two commonwealths, and three provinces. They want to see further changes noted separately. The is would be good because (2) it makes no sense to switch the table to all Romney—where's the history in that? There is already a start in the new section under the table with MT and Louisiana, and the nine other states with outstanding delegates not committed to a hopeful, plus PA. As these states decide and announce what they are going to do and how they are going to vote, such as, "The proud state of Montana casts all 23 votes for Romney!" we can modify the section-paragraph that follows the table. I'll send a note to Jack Bornholm and the 200 or so editors watching this Article can comment. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we should change the table to reflect the vote at the convention in general. All the unbound delegates (beside one or two paul delegates) will vote for Romney and maybe also all the gingrich and santorum delegates if the are released. So as in all other conventions the actual roll call will bear little reseambles with the actual primaries. All that can will vote for the winner in a big unifying party act. This article is about the primaries not the general election and the convention is very much about the general election. And beside the clear problems with LA and MT the table I think should be kept as it is showing the real fight of the primaries instead of the unifying around the winner. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Table is now frozen in History! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Results (and vote changes) at Convention

Cf: Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries for our article (to see switched votes.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys? Three maps?

I think three maps is a little overboard doesn't represent a neutral POV because they make it look like Ron Paul did better than he really did which gives the reader a false impression, especially a reader just skimming through. NO other primaries have three maps saying which state voted for who in their caucuses and which states voted for who in the convention vote. They are largely all irrelevant details that might require mentions somewhere in the article, but not a map that is one of the first thing a reader will look at. 161.253.11.22 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The third map . . . (delegates after the convention roll call)

The third map is appropriate and looks great (delegates after the convention roll call) but the problem is that a paragraph has appeared under the map that wrong. The map reflects reality of finalized state delegations, NOT PROJECTIONS. Can this be removed? "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. This count is a unprojected softcount, which only includes allocated delegates and unallocated delegates that have been elected. It does not included any projected count on future local conventions or the 117 unbound RNC delegates that are not a part of the primary election process. According to party rules all territories are counted as states, and a state is carried when a candidate can show a plurality of delegates in that state.[3]" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Table should say Paul won four states, not three

It's no biggie but he won four states, as the table shows so it should say he won 4 states. Right now it says he won 3. J390 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Which four? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In the second table, Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, and Maine. J390 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you are absolutely correct! And adding to the Paul total before the roll call would then add correctly to 57 states, territories, providences, and DC, as so correctly noted by Obama that there are 57 'states'. ;-) The difficulty is that the text is not in this page but is brought in with the graphics, which is hard to identify, then hard to find the storage. Patient editors tried to teach me this before. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As of this date, the numbers under the top three maps add correctly to 57 only in the middle map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to Maine, Romney gets one more in 1st & 3rd map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers in the 1st and 3rd map still do not add up to 57 due to Maine ending up in the Romney column. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Olde Man! Are you nuts? Are you batty? Are you balmy? Your problem is you looked at the legend of territories and thought it was 2x3 and it is NOT! This makes you wrong, wrong, wrong: just as Willie Wonka would say to Charley Buckets, Charlie. Tell President Obama next time you invite him to lunch. What does this mean for the maps in this article, you ask? It means that only one of the maps add up incorrectly (of the top three) — the second map adds incorrectly to 57, and the first and third map adds correctly to 56. You can clearly see by noticing Maine in the three map. There are 50 states, five provinces and DC, and Romney has 44 (not 45) in the second map at the top of the article because of Paul winning Maine in the end. Look in your 'Lessons Learned' document-file that you keep for yourself; then be brave and fix the text yourself. Rewards tonight, sweety. — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to show you WP:NPA. Secondly, the results of the Louisiana caucus remain heavily disputed. The convention split into two, so honestly the state should be grey in the second map (if anything, it and Maine should be for Romney, since the delegates voted for him in the end). Mr. Anon515 22:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the color of Maine on the second map is correct. I cannot find evidence to the contrary (that Ron Paul won the electoral votes 10-2 over Romney.) I checked the Maine GOP website for news at the end of August [11] and they don't even mention the results at the Republican national convention. We should change the Romney count on the second map from 45 to 44 and leave the colors as they now stand. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, change the Romney count on the second map from 45 to 44 — colors of the 2nd map are correct! TNKS, Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The counts on the three top maps all add to 50 states + DC + 5 territories = 56 and is correct in all but the middle map which adds to 57 since the Romney count should be 54, not 55. Can it be fixed by someone? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

two comments

First, congrats on a fabulous page. Second, in the county by county results maps at the end - may I suggest you consider using maps where the area on the screen (# of pixels) is proportional to population , rather then square miles. Use of square mile proportional maps, while having the great virture of being accepted, greatly (greatly) overstate the emphasis of large sparsely populated states like WY, MT, etc. If a pop map (see Sam Wang's web page) you would see that the entire upper plains is a tiny fractio of the population, which shows that R Santorum's wins are much less important then they appear this is a pscyhological perception thing; the brain equates area with importance, even tho almost no one (roughly ) lives in MT; the huge populations of LA and NYC are invisible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.51.31 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But in the electoral vote, MT was important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As to your population point, most people reading this article understand states like Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, etc. don't have the same population as NY, CA, et.al., and the mind can process the information. Perhaps a different sub-article would use a different graphical representation technique: perhaps at the bottom of Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in re-reading your second comment, your suggestion may be a great one applied to the county-by-county maps at the end of this article. Where is the example of Sam Wang's website? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason that there's no red bars underneath the four major candidates' pictures yet? They're there on all other pages for Republican primaries, just as blue bars are for Democratic primaries. Can someone please add them? 71.140.88.129 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: The system of area proportional to population works better for the general election map, where the popular vote is more important. In primaries, there's a lot of factors going into electing delegates, and the popular vote is just one of them. Furthermore, the practice of "voting" in various states works differently, especially betweeen caucuses and primaries. This skews turnout levels. Finally, it's logical that after the winner (Romney) was clear, turnout would drop in following states, since he shifted from campaigning against other Republicans to campaigning against the POTUS. That means that later states have proportionally lower turnout than earlier states. Mr. Anon515 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Postscript on Polling

An interesting follow up: [12] "Obama's Data Team Totally Schooled Gallup" if you believe your eyes. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)