Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Wisconsin, a 'bellwether' state?

Meaning an indication of the future, (both in the primary election cycle, and the general election) Wisconsin (with a few other states) is called a bellwether voting state. Here's the term used in The New York Times.[1] -- AstroU (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a quote from The NYTimes:
"And for both campaigns, these final Wisconsin days are proving to be both a necessary stress test and, depending on the results, a likely bellwether of candidate strategy for the rest of the primary season."
-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
In other words, not a bellwether voting state at all. StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
We'll see what strategy Trump, Cruz, and other hopefuls take. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Bellwether lists Guam as a 'bellwether' territory, predicting the president. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

With 90% of the Wisconsin vote counted, Ted Cruz wins the state with 48.6% and Trump is in second place with 34.7%. There is a 20% trigger threshold, and so Kasich gets NOTHING/ZIP/ZERO/NADA. Since it is a 'winner-take-most-state' if Cruz crosses 50%, he takes all, otherwise, Cruz gets two delegate-votes for every one that Trump gets. Watch how this shakes out. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin is not a winner-take-most state. It is a winner-take-all state and because of that it of course have no thresholds. Its 8 CD are also Winner-take-all contests. It looks like Cruz wins the state contest (18) and 6 Congregational District contests (18) and Trump wins two CD contests (6). Where did you find those other informations? Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Politico states that Cruz gets 36 and Trump gets 6 delegates - - Same for Green Papers - - Jesseschulman (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Our table says Wisconsin is 'winner-take-most' and I heard on FoxNews TV that if Cruz got 50% he would take all; and that if Kasich didn't rise above a threshold of 20% he would get zero. Each state makes their own rules (within the RNC bounds) and what they do after voting is also individualized, as we well know. I'll search for online clarification, especially for the delegate leaders who will attend and not be bound to any candidate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC) PS: This discussion could be in a separate thread (because it applies to ongoing voting.)

Jack, I'm realizing you are right and resulting delegate-votes are determined at the congressional district level. There is no proportional distrubution according to the two-to-one 'winner-take-most' methodology. Hence, is our table wrong? Cruz doesn't take all, and 'winner-takes-most' is also wrong.-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
He did take all in the contests he won. We have to do something to explain that most states are having Congregational Districts contests. What we do know seem to be to little. I am a bit stupefied by it. It seems that many US people dont know their basic federal voting unit. It would be like I didn't know the D'Hondt method. The cliche where I am from is that Americans are more stupid than other people in the world, but that can be. Something else must be wrong. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO, the reason Wisconsin was referred to as a bellwether was because Trump would have been likely to reach 1,237 delegates had he won, but he is now much less likely to reach 1,237 after the state went to Cruz. Yesterday, I added language in the section to that effect. pbp 22:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that our table has been corrected to 'winner-take-all' (as stated precisely in Green Papers for WI.[2]) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As to the US voting public, (1) It comes only every four years; (2) WI has 5.7million and nearly 2million voted (only 35%); (3)The most astute and well-read (reading this article, perhaps) may know their state rules, but not the rules of other states; (4) they leave it to their party leaders. (5) For example, union members and some demographics will just vote 'D', but some cross-over since WI is 'open'; (5) and then there are the "low-information" voters (as called by the main talk show in America) who hardly know who or what they are voting for. For example, they hate what they see happening in America, but think Obama is fighting to correct the policies he put in place, like Obamacare, for example. (This is not original research.) Bottom Line: This article explains rather well the differences between 'winner-take-most' and 'winner-take-all' and the 50% and other thresholds. Thanks for the good work. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC) -- PS: With a Google-search on [Winner take all Wisconsin] and same for 'winner take most' you will see that the majority of sources get it right (as easily described in Green Papers) but 4,000 reference to major news sources get it wrong. FYI.

Delegate count

Could an editor kindly update the delegate count to reflect official source? RC (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@RCRC: Thanks for this. I've updated the article, since I can't imagine there'll be an objection to using the RNC's official projection, but I've retained TGP for the delegate counts of the withdrawn candidates. (Any remaining delegates should be unbound so this shouldn't pose problems for the overall total.) Is this source new? I don't remember there being an official projection previously. —Nizolan (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this came out a day ago, including with diagrams of how the 2016 rules will be composed and approved. How this evolves remains to be seen, but this addition to the site is to show that everything is fair and 'above board'. Procedures are per delegate approval, and not in 'smoke-filled-brokering-rooms' so to speak. This is good news, if carried as everyone is given to understand. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. —Nizolan (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does the number in the InfoBox always differ from what the main article says? I've noticed it being different on a half dozen occasions over the past couple weeks. Same goes for the popular vote count. - Jesseschulman (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Mainly edit warring over which reliable source to use, and editors (both anonymous and logged in) who only partially update numbers. For a while, The Green Papers was the main source for information, but new editors or sources periodically come along to upset that balance. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The numbers are repeatedly altered by new/IP editors. I'm not sure where the numbers come from at the moment—the citation in the main article is still the RNC's estimates—but I'm going to give up reverting them back. —Nizolan (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please note that there is a discussion over this happening at the template talk page here. —Nizolan (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Change Wyoming Back to Grey?

I noticed that Wyoming is being showed as Ted Cruz's victory. However, he has only won nine out of the 29 delegates available. There are still 14 pledged delegates available. In order to say that Cruz has won the state, shouldn't be have to win 15 total? Meaning he has to win at least another 6 more pledged delegates? Until that happens later in April, I think Wyoming should remain Grey.Creepy Karpis (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Creepy Karpis: No. Let's say a state has 30 delegates. Trump wins 12 delegates, Cruz wins 11, and Kasich wins 7. Trump would still be counted as winning that state because he has the plurality of the available delegates. MB298 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Creepy Karpis that Wyoming should be left as undecided until all pledged delegates have been elected. According to convention schedule this should happen on April 16; just one week of patience ;) — JFG talk 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Also agreed (as I mentioned before on this topic). The key issue is that the selection of delegates hasn't finished, not that it's a plurality rather than a majority. —Nizolan (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate count in infobox

Editors here should be aware that there is an RfC regarding the source for the delegate count at the page for the infobox here. —Nizolan (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Colorado "inside politics"

Colorado GOP leadership decides for the people (caucus didn't work).

Headline-1: Cruz dominates Colorado, claims majority of delegates on eve of convention

QUOTE: ... Trump is investing the bare minimum in Colorado — after the campaign made a strategic decision not to invest heavily in a place it felt favored party insiders. "The process here doesn't lend itself to our kind of campaign," said Alan Cobb, a senior Trump adviser based in Kansas who is on the ground in Colorado Springs. "Our expectations are really low. If we get a delegate number higher than zero, it's going to be a success." ... -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Green Papers gives 30 delegates to Cruz, with four uncommitted.[3] -- with only 5% of Coloradoans attending caucus March 1st.

The United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado,_2016 article is good, but there are three delegates yet to be declared, and the table does not add to 37 delegates. Where is the table stored? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The current text about Colorado does not reflect that the voting on March 1st was discarded. "On April 9, Cruz won the Colorado delegates after taking a solid majority, the state's four uncommitted delegates declaring support for Cruz, bringing his total delegate count in Colorado to 34." And it does not indicate that the total votes for CO will be 37. Further, it says there was "a solid majority" but that is not of the citizens voting on March 1st. -- AstroU (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Missouri on "First place by popular vote" map remaining colored for Trump

In the archives there was an incomplete RfC regarding the shaded color of Missouri on the ""First place by popular vote" map as a couple of editors felt it shouldn't be shaded blue because it was such a close result.

For the sake of completeness, the Missouri Secretary of State today has officially called Missouri for Trump as having the highest popular vote so this discussion should be finally moot.[4]--Oakshade (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate map - North Carolina

Can North Carolina on the delegate map be updated? According to sources here, here, and here, the count should be Trump 29, Cruz 27, Kasich 9, Rubio 6, Carson 1 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Speculation of Path to Winning Nomination

Following the Polls at RCP here, Trump is leading by decent margins in the Winner take all states of NJ, PA, CA, and MD which equal 332 delegates. He is also leading in the polls in the Winner take most states of CT and NY, which have 123 delegates up for grabs. There are an additional 314 delegates available in the remaining 11 primaries beyond those. Currently, Trump needs 481 to win the nomination. Assuming he wins in all the states where he is leading for Winner take all, and wins in the ones where Winner takes most with 50% of the delegates, that gains him 393 delegates. He would only need 88 of the remaining 314 (only 28%) to grasp the nomination. It's far from set in stone, and a lot can change in the next 2 months, but it certainly looks like a real possibility based on the current polling data. Jesseschulman (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jesseschulman: Okay. Since this is not a talkpage for general discussion about the primary and discussion should be limited to improving the article (see the box at the top) what improvements or changes are you suggesting for this article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting adding a blurb about this to the article. Speaking to how crucial these remaining 11 smaller states may actually be in the big picture. Typically in the past, the primary is all but over by this time. For the first time in a long time, the remaining smaller states may actually decide if there is a nomination before the primaries are completed or not. I'm a horrible writer, but maybe someone else can elaborate on what I said above in the article. Possibly in the "Late March – April 2016: A three-candidate race" section, or a new section for the remaining races after April. If the majority of the remaining 11 states vote heavily towards Cruz/Kasich, they could keep Trump from becoming the automatic nomination. If they vote heavily for Trump, it will all but lock him in. Jesseschulman (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Might be a good idea. I would suggest you find two highly respectable sources that say what you have been saying. Like New York Times or Washington Post or the like. I know that your thoughts are very logical and is easy to see simply from the schedule and the polls, but it would be OR (see Wikipedia:No original research. My guess is that such articles will be easy to find tomorrow after Trump wins NY tonight, not matter if the victory is small or large. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, tomorrow there should be more info in regards to this, but even today I found a few here, here, here, here, and here. Jesseschulman (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Rule 40b

In a few places in the article it reads that a candidate must have (or win) a majority of delegates of eight states to be able to be nominated. The rule states "shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states" and further goes on to say "to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states." There are sources saying that delegates could sign pledges of support for candidates after the bound rounds of voting and that could satisfy this rule. I feel that any reference to gaining a majority of the delegates in a state, in regards to Rule 40b, should be removed or the reference to Rule 40b should be removed as this rule is unclear and open to interpretation. Without the change, the article forming an interpretation which may or may not be true. If the article felt like it needed to address Rule 40b, then it should be addressed by itself. KD0710 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is already saying that the rule might be changed. And it does not comment at all on how gaining the majority in 8 delegations might be reach after the first vote. It simply talks about the first vote AKA before the convention starts. How is 8 delegation with a bound majority open for interpretation? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It is open to interpretation because it does not say a bound majority, it says a candidates must show support from a majority. This could be done through a letter of commitment signed by the delegates. There should be a separate item discussing Rule 40(b) and/or convention rules rather than it be splashed here or there in the article. KD0710 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying it would possible for a candidate to show support from a state delegation that are bound to another candidate BEFORE the convention? Lets say the South Carolina delegation. They are bound to vote for Trump at the first ballot, nothing they can do about it. Are you saying that by signing a letter they can take away their states support for Trump and give it to lets say Kasich BEFORE the convention? I am not talking about what might happen if no one is elected on the first ballot, then they would be free to show majority for any candidate. I would really like to see some references talking about it, if this is what you are saying. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Bornholm: It is possible to interpret the rule that way, yes. As it stands, the rule says that to "demonstrate the support" of these delegates, they specifically need "a certificate evidencing [their] affirmative written support"—nothing to do with their pledged vote. Here's The American Spectator: Based on the plain language of 40(b), at least one hour in advance, a majority of delegates in each of eight states can in writing affirm support for any candidate, even if those same delegates are (or were) obligated on the first ballot to vote for, say Trump or Cruz or Kasich or even Rubio (who still has delegates). [5]Nizolan (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. We should put this in the process section. I will leave it to someone that knows more about than me though. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Need more than available for Cruz

Sorry for my English, but actually theorically there are enough delegates because Rubio delegates are free so they can vote Cruz, Trump or someone they want — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually only 32 rubio delegates are free, the other 144 are still bound to the suspended candidate. But you are right, if all the unbound delegates, their number will most likely be 156, would go with Cruz he could still win on the first ballot. The first table in the article simply states that he can not reach the benchmark with the candidates that are still to be allocated. The only candidate that can secure his nomination before the convention is Trump. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cruz not out?

If theoretically all of Rubio's delegates (that are unbound currently) vote for Cruz, doesn't that mean that he only needs like 500 of the remaining delegates up for voting? Nergaal (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure but that's crystalline speculation. This table only takes into account pledged delegates (bound to vote on the first ballot). I changed the wording to "Cannot reach majority with pledged delegates" so hopefully this minor edit battle can be put to rest. — JFG talk 04:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate Breakdown

A very interesting breakdown was made by @Koorosh1234: but no reference can be seen and it can not simply be read out of the schedule in the article as so much else. I was especially interested in seeing the GOP breakdown because I have been looking around on their website without finding it. I have put these interesting details here so we can get some references attached to them before we return them to the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • GOP did not consider any unpledged delegates won by candidates in US Virgin Islands (4), Guam (1), American Samoa (2), Wyoming (11), Colorado (4) and North Dakota (11). They give 12 state delegates to Donald Trump for winning Missouri.[citation needed]
  • AP did not consider some unpledged delegates won by candidates in US Virgin Islands (4) and North Dakota (1). They have not given 12 state delegates for Missouri to any candidates.[citation needed]
  • CNN did not consider some unpledged delegates won by candidates in American Samoa (2) and North Dakota (2). They give 12 state delegates to Donald Trump for winning Missouri.[citation needed]
  • TGP in their soft delegate estimates did not consider some unpledged delegates won by candidates in American Samoa (2). They give 12 state delegates to Donald Trump for winning Missouri.[citation needed]
Thanks for your edits and clarifications. The references of what I explained for AP, CNN and TGP are simply their delegates pages in their websites that are already given in Wikipedia delegate table. They have the detailed delegate distribution for each state, that I explain them at the top. The only missing reference is form GOP website that unfortunately do not have detailed delegate distribution by each state. But if we compare the numbers, it is easy to understand that GOP website have not consider unpledged delegates allocated to candidates from the given states which have unpledged delegates. There are many proof for the issue, that the most recent one was Colorado delegates update that GOP website did yesterday and just added 30 delegates to Ted Cruz. And as we all know Cruz won 30 pledged and 4 unpledged delegates from Colorado.
For Wyoming also the 11 delegates given to candidates so far (Cruz:9, Trump:1, Rubio:1) are officially unpledged. The reason is the state convention is not held yet, or in other words the state delegate process is not still complete. Most of these delegates will be officially pledged to candidates after the state convention held later this week. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand your calculation for GOP. I pretty much made them myself, it seems that they will not add a state before all (both CD and Al) have been allocated/elected in the state. But that is OR and cant really be used, personally I like to walk the edge of OR myself but I do think this is over the edge since it does include assumptions - unfortunately. Personally I would say that the other references is okay, I know a lot that would say it is OR. We had a lot of discussions like that in 2012, but the mood seems to be a little lighter this time. What do you want to do? Put up the three others without GOP or go for it hoping no one talks about OR :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't insist to include this 4-line description in the article. My goal was just simply to explain the main reason that the delegates numbers in given sources are different. By considering the above-mentioned descriptions, I beleive GOP, AP and TGP have a really close delegate estimation system (with some slight variations). However, CNN is quite different in delegates allocations for some of the states. For instance, in Illinois they allocate the delegates in a completely different manner and unlike of all other web-sources!
Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sure the people who make CNNs estimate understand the logic behind, it does leave me behind. By now it seems that the GOP estimate have not added Wyomings 24 (going to happen when someone meets at work) and the Alaska Five. Even though Alaska RNC say they will not reallocated Rubios five delegates, as some interpretations of their local rules say they should, it seems that the GOP estimate people would like to see it before they belive it (happpens April 28). That would make future primaries (769) plus Wyomings delegation (24) plus the Alaska Five (5) for 798 remaining delegates. And all uncommitted delegates go to others no matter what they might declare. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I see I was wrong. The GOP estimate is now only counting the future primaries (696) So as far as the GOP Estimate goes the problem have solved itself. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It is interesting to see that now CNN corrected the problems that I mentioned them before regarding Illinois delegates. By now, it seems all four sources (GOP, AP, CNN, TGP) have quite similar delegates allocations. And the only difference is that GOP have not considered any unpledged delegates, while the other three have considered some unpledged delegates (in different ways) for candidates. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Libertarian Primaries in see also

I see no reason why the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 should not be included in the see also section of this article (top and bottom). The Libertarian party's primary has been widely covered by reliable independent sources and since I see no consensus of a decision from the discussion I don't understand why some users are quoting it as a reason to revert this edit. Even so, since said discussion (which took place almost 3 weeks ago) the Libertarian Party has had 2 nationally televised debates on Fox and have received much more considerable coverage because so many people are looking at third party options. A few examples - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Acidskater (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Libertarian primaries, as well as the Green primaries, are small and minor-party contests that are barely covered compared to the Dem and GOP primaries. Turn on CNN, NBC, or any other news network and it will be rare to see even a mention of the Libertarian primaries. These should be included in the see-also section at the bottom instead of at the top. MB298 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The previous discussion returned no firm consensus precisely because there are arguments against including the Libertarian (and Green) primaries at the top, so "I see no reason why" is not a good reason to do so. My position is still the same as MB298. Incidentally, with a couple of exceptions the articles linked above are on Gary Johnson as presumptive Libertarian nominee and not the Libertarian primaries, which have still received negligible coverage compared to the two major parties. —Nizolan (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually change my mind. As per WP:ALSO and Manual of Style the links at the top should all be deleted as it does not adhere to the guidelines set forth. There is already a See Also section later in the article with proper links that adhere to the guidelines set, so having another see also section violates WP:NOTSEEALSO. Acidskater (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Even more I should note this is an improper use of hatnotes as per WP:RELATED. Acidskater (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC
I would like to bring an non US perspective into the debate of hasnote in this article. Personally I dont mind one way or another since I have found interest in the rather oldfashion ways of the american democracy as a sort of a hobby. So I know US have a de facto two party system making it almost impossible for a third party to have any influence. I also know that if a third party does raise to power it will shortly eradicated one of the two old parties making an new two party system. Something that have happened a few times in US history. I know that you all know these thing as I am sure all Americans do. But if I told some of my European friend (Continental not British) I would have to explain for a long time and they might not believe me at first. The though that USA, looked at as an democratic country, has choicen to keep such a 19th century style of democracy instead of a modern parliamentary system would surprise some of them. To such readers I do think the hatnote of the Democratic Party Primary is helpful, since the very concept of a Primary is new to them. Adding third party hatnotes would only make confusion because they would of course believe that these third parties are just a important as their background is a multiparty system. Again, I dont personally mind if we erase all the hatnotes, they are in the see also section after all. But I do think the inclusion of third parties in the hatnotes will make confusion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

An similar discussion, mentioned by Nizolan above, of this subject happened on March 28. It is now archived at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016/Archive 3#Links at top of page. Maybe the thoughts from this discussion could be helpful today? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point I don't understand how we can continue a discussion when we already know the inclusion of this hatnote goes against WP:ALSO and WP:RELATED. It should be taken down from all primary pages, especially those which already include a See Also section in the body of the article. Even more, I really doubt someone trying to find the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 will accidentally get the Republican primary page. Being that MB298 and Nizolan have yet to give their opinion on the matter I will wait to hear what they think, but nevertheless I see no way in which these hatnotes fit the guidelines set. Acidskater (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Acidskater: I now agree no see also hatnotes should be included, however support inclusion of the Dem, Green, and Lib primaries in the See Also section. MB298 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I highly support inclusion of the Democrats, Green, and Libertarian party primaries in the see also section (which I believe all parties are already represented properly in the see also section of each primary page). I would also entertain the possibility for other parties to be included in the future if another party begins to receive the proper (however that becomes defined) independent national coverage. Acidskater (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We still have yet to hear from @Nizolan: but it seems that the consensus is to take down the see also hatnotes. I'll give it another day for anyone who wants to contest this but if there is no argument by tomorrow I think it's fair to say we can take down the hatnotes. Acidskater (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


It is not clear which is the Delegate Allocation Rule for California. In the table it says "winner-take-all", in the map it says "hybrid", and the New York Times says "winner-take-most". Can someone clarify this? Codinoo (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (Codinoo) 20 April 2016

California is a winner take all in the State contest and a winner take all in every one of its congregational districts. Since it will be possible (and quit likely) for one candidate to win some CD and loose others some media outlets find it hard to understand. For them a winner-take-all have to be that only one candidate takes all the delegates, they dont want to talk about the fact that it is one contest but 54 separate contests (one state and 53 districts), maybe this will change as the CA primary gets closer. Try to look at the references to the table (at the bottom) for more information, especially The Green Papers. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it should say "Winner take most", because the concept seems to be the exact same as what was done in New York, which indicates that it is winner take most.--JOJ Hutton 11:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jojhutton: They are not the same, and the table is correct. California allocates its at-large and district delegates winner-take-all. New York does not, in either case—hence why Kasich received 5 delegates in NY despite the overall allocation being 3 delegates per district in every state (5 isn't divisible by 3). Trump triggered a winner-take-all catch for the at-large delegates because he received over 50% of the vote in the state. The full rules for allocation in NY are detailed at The Green Papers. —Nizolan (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
NY was the first time the 50% trigger in a winner-take-most primary was activated so maybe many have not even considered that such a mechanism exist in the many others similar primaries. But not all the NY contests activated the 50% trigger, only the state contests and 23 out of 27 District contests. In 3 CD contests two was given to the Trump who won the district with less than 50% of the votes and one was given to Kasich as the runner-up. In one District it was the other way around with two given to Kasich who won the district with less than 50% of the votes and one was given to Trump as the runner-up. This gave 90 delegates to Trump and 5 to Kasich, if it had been a winner-take-all like California it would have given 92 to Trump (plurality in state plus 26 districts) and 3 to Kasich (plurality in one district). We are talking about a difference of very few delegates because the Trump victory in NY was so large. In other words a similar victory in CA (with three candidates in the race) can be much smaller and still yield the same procentage of candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
(Bear in mind NY wasn't the first time—Cruz triggered the winner-take-all catch in Utah) —Nizolan (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right, I simpy forgot that one. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

New York

It has been a week already since the New York primary. Why hasn't the map for "result by popular vote" been updated to reflect this? Ingebot (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is free and depends on people to do it themselves. WP:BEBOLD. —Nizolan (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Super Tuesday III

In this cycle there has been hyperinflation in the term Super Tuesday. Depending on what news source you read they will number it differently. It seems that CNN have named March 15 Super Tuesday 3 [14], the same date is named Super Tuesday 2 by the Washington Post [15]. Different blogs are naming the vote tommorrow, April 26, as Super Tuesday 3 [16] while New York Post wisely calls it A Super Tuesday [[17]]. As June 7 draws closer with the CA primary my guess would be that the term super tuesday will be used again again.

What do we do about the super tuesday inflation and how will we use the expression in this article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What about a note saying that "April 26 has been labeled Super Tuesday 2 or 3 by different sources"? Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have recently heard of "Acela Primary" named after a train line. It's not as big of a super Tuesday as the 2 in March and it's all in the northeast. [1] [2] ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of news sources seem to refer to it as the Acela primary, and I haven't heard of it being called Super Tuesday 3 until now. The New York Times doesn't give a proper name and not sure is an RS. I went ahead and changed the section header to "Acela primary", let me know if that's an issue. —Nizolan (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


The tables use incorrect headings.

In these tables, the final column is entitled "Cumulative". I don't think that's a correct use of the term. Why not use the term "total"? "Cumulative" means -- or at least infers -- an accumulation over time. Like, for example, from the beginning of the primary until today.

For example, let's look at the table for yesterday: April 26, 2016: Acela primary. (And all the other tables have the same issue.) This table says, on the first row,

April 26 results
Candidate Trump Cruz Kasich Cumulative
Delegates won 112 1 5 118

The number 118 comes from adding 112 plus 1 plus 5. That is a "total" number of delegates won on April 26. That is not a "cumulative" number of delegates won on April 16. Thanks. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It was only added today, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and just change it to "total"... —Nizolan (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No. I don't ever deal with this article. So, I don't want to go in and start editing willy-nilly in an article with which I am unfamiliar. Also, I imagine these same tables are probably in all of the other similar articles (GOP primary, GOP primary results, Democratic primary, Democratic primary results, etc.). So, it's probably not a simple matter of just editing that one word on that one table. In fact, I only used that table as an example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
They aren't, they are only on this article. I just switched the word per your reasoning anyway. —Nizolan (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm the one who put "cumulative" and I agree that "total" is better. It also saves a little space, which is a minor added bonus. Orser67 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


Pennsylvania's Unpledged Delegates

I have read, both on the green papers and on the NYT, that Trump "has got" 32 of the 54 Pennsylvania's unpledged delegates. How does this work? Are they committed now or can they change their mind when they want? Codinoo (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's 54 unbound delegates (3 for each congressional district) are not formally 'bound' to vote for a candidate. They may or may not openly declare support for a candidate, but they can also change who they support from now onwards. They are elected with only their name on the ballot, with no indication of who they plan to vote for at the convention. In practice, it is possible for a presidential candidate to get some of their dedicated supporters elected through this process, if they send information to the voters to tell them which delegates to vote for. This appears to be why it has been reported that most of these delegates are supportive of Trump. Others may not have been dedicated Trump supporters but had pledged to support whoever won in the state or in the congressional district where they ran. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!! (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Delegates won and delegates still needed mismatch

For Donald Trump, The number of delegates won plus the number of delegates still needed, in the "Candidate and results" section add up to be much more than 1237. I suspect this is because some of Donald Trump's 991 delegates won contains the unpledged delegates from Pennsylvania, and thus not considered for the "number of pledged delegates still needed", but this needs to be expressed much more clearly as someone not fully acquainted with the primary process may assume this is a mathematical error. Ingebot (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is due to edit warring regarding which reliable source to use for projected delegate totals. It looks like it is matched now, but it will at times be mismatched as editors continue to disagree and reliable sources continue to be updated at different times using different estimation methods. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump now over 1000 delegates (live on CNN, wolf blitzer)

Just saw Wolf Blitzer reporting on CNN that Trump now has reached over 1000 delegates. Can someone take the time and check that out and update the counts?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

CNN are acting strange again. I get that if you count all the unbound delegates in districts in Pennsylvania where Trump won you can easy get 59. But how they get away with calling those delegates pledge delegates I dont know. Just show an example of why the word pledge is bad to use in this article when we mean legally bound delegates. I have no idea if all these unbound Pennsylvania delegates have pledge themselve to Trump, but if they have it will not mean they count toward bound delegates. This is important this cycle, because if Trump dont get 1237 BOUND delegates Cruz or someone else will use all the time from CA primary to Convention trying to change those PLEDGE delegates mind instead of unifying the party. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is anti Trump. Wikipedia is run by corupted agents with help/use of a lot naive people. People who cant see thiny details under decoration. There is no much hope for objectivity here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's unpledged delegates have not yet been included in the totals (currently 956 for Trump). By some estimates, as many as 40 of the unbound delegates from Pennsylvania them may be supportive of Trump, though that doesn't seem to be enough to drive it as high as 1000. Have there been uncommitted delegates from elsewhere declaring support? Is it worth keeping separate totals for pledged and unpledged delegates? Anywikiuser (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Keeping track of these uncommitted delegates is what AP, CNN and TGP does. And we report it in the first table. Keeping track of it by ourselves would both be OR and impossible. Since the game-over number is when Trump is getting 1237 BOUND delegates, witch will either happen or not happen June 7, this is the first number mentioned in the table but all the other estimates are there too. As explained in the text above the table none of the other soft estimate will end speculations of and effort made toward a open convention. So the main number now is the hard count, meaning only counting legally bound delegates, the soft counts are the secondary counts. This may change after june 7 if Trump shouldn't get a majority in bound delegates. Right now that doesn't really seems likely, but that is for the future... Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anywikiuser: I just realized you might be talking about the box in the right upper corner in the article and not the first table in the article (the current delegates breakdown) I was wondering why you didn't see that all the numbers was in the table. My mistake, sorry about that. The box in the upper right is a template and is used in several wikipedia articles. If you want to discuss the numbers there and there sources you should go to the templates talkpage: Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. There was a discussion about this some time ago, but maybe after Pennsylvania it is time to discuss it again. Good luck Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Result by popular vote map in Wyoming

Trump didn't win the popular vote in Wyoming did he? Then why does the image make it look like he did? The graphic pie chart showing the percentage of vote makes it look like Trump won the Popular vote, even though the only thing I could find was a caucus where Ted Cruz won >50% of the vote. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ali Zifan: @Jvikings1: There was no popular vote in Wyoming, so may the problem be solved by making it blank just like Colerado and North Dakota? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed it's an exact copy as the one in Nevada, so someone clearly made a mistake. TL565 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The math is incorrect.

The math is incorrect in the following table. The total says 118. But 110 plus 3 plus 5 plus 16 does not equal 118. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

April 26 results
Candidate Trump Cruz Kasich Uncom. Total
Delegates won 110 3 5 16 118
Popular vote 1,334,243
3,077 2,352,303
There were 172 delegates at stake - 118 pledged delegates and 54 uncommitted delegates in Pennsylvania. Of those 54, 38 have declared support for a candidate and 16 have remained uncommitted (but may yet declare support for someone). It's the 38 unbound delegates who have declared support for a candidate that haven't been counted. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anywikiuser: Thanks. Everything that you say may indeed be true. But the chart is still wrong. By anybody's reading of it, the chart says: "the total of 110 plus 3 plus 5 plus 16 equals 118". And that is simply not true. If the chart is "supposed to" factor in all of those intricate details that you mention, it certainly does not do so effectively by simply saying (inaccurately) "the total is 118". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If it is wrong why dont you research it, find the right answer and then change it? be Bold. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(1) Because this is not an article that I am familiar with. It is not an article that I edit. As such, I assume people who do edit regularly have some rhyme or reason for their edits. (2) I believe it has already been changed, anyway. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The numbers in this article makes no sense

So in the infobox it says 957 (while it's source gives a completely other number) and then you read the article and it gives all kinds of different number. Stick to one source or don't give any number at all. (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But there is not one number. There is a bound number and many many estimates on soft numbers. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem with delegate sources

Right now, the delegate count is sourced to GOP Official Delegate Count which is dated April 21, 2016. Clearly, their count isn't up to date and so if editors are using a different source for these figures, they need to change the reference to the source that is being used. Liz Read! Talk! 14:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we use the TGPs Hard Count until the source is updated again. Please notice I am talking about the TGPs HARDCOUNT, since the soft count is already in the right side of the first table. The numbers is of course exactly the same because there is no discussion about bound delegates by now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Temporary Source for Hard Count

Since something is holding the GOP source back from adding last weeks delegates. (Maybe some ballot counting problem?) I have temporary switched to the Green Papers HARDCOUNT. It have the same numbers except it count 508 not 502 available delegates. When the GOP count becomes up to date we can switch back. Please dont confuse the TGP hardcount with the TGP softcount. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Campaign finance section

The "campaign finance" section contains a chart. Why are some numbers red with a negative sign and others are red without a negative sign? Is there some distinction? This needs clarification. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, the "sorting" does not work correctly, with regard to the red numbers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read the text above the charts. It is already explained in the text as it should be. I see no problems in the sorting at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I was initially confused because the table has red numbers for two different reasons. In the "Cash on hand" column, the red numbers signify negative amounts, as is typical in accounting. In the "Debt" column, the red signifies "technically insolvent", and this column is not a mixture of negative and positive numbers. (Red font can signify a negative value whether or not there is a negative sign, but that is not the case here.) There is probably a better way to signify "technically insolvent" than to use a format that means a different thing in the same table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly my point. (1) Reader's eyes shoot straight for the chart. They don't bother to read the introductory text. The chart should be self-explanatory, anyway. (2) You can't use the same formatting (red numbers) to mean two completely different things in the same exact chart, only one or two columns away. Makes no sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to see the new design Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried background shading instead of font color. I'm not the best person to pick colors, so feel free to adjust it further. For what it's worth, I think this section needs a source/citation for the "technically insolvent" designation. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump won Indiana - Color it blue on the map please.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal endorsement?

The only information I could find on Bobby Jindal "endorsing" Donald Trump is in this article,, where Boby Jindal has said he will support Donald Trump if he is the republican nominee, i.e, he will not go on "never Trump". I'm not sure this count as a real endorsement. Plus, Bobby Jindal wasn't listed in List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, so I don't know exactly where this alleged Boby Jindal endorsement came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingebot (talkcontribs) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Correct, that should not count as an endorsement. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The math is again incorrect.

The math is again incorrect in the chart below. The total value states 2,352,303. Is that supposed to be a total of the other four columns before it? Or does it refelect some other total value? If the former, then the math is incorrect. Anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

April 26 results
Candidate Trump Cruz Kasich Uncom. Total
Delegates won 111 2 5 6 124
Popular vote 1,334,243
3,077 2,352,303
2,352,303 is not meant to be a total of the other 4 columns. It is a total of all votes in these states. The ballots for each state include withdrawn/suspended candidates not listed in this table, such as Carson, Rubio, and Bush. These candidates are on the ballot because each state has its own deadline for printing ballots, and voters are free to vote for withdrawn candidates. Those votes total 55,745, as of today's count. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, what you say may indeed be 100% true. But, clearly, that info is not reflected in the chart. Anybody reading this chart will assume (correctly) that when you have a column called "total", it is giving the total of the four columns before it. Particularly so, when that's what is happening with the other "total value columns" (number of delegates won, etc.). This needs to be fixed. Or clarified. It is clearly misleading in the way that the info is now presented. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't think that "total" implies a total of the other four columns, I think that "total" implies the total vote. I don't think that it is misleading or requires clarification. Orser67 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Really? You see four columns. Immediately to their right, you see a fifth column called "total". You do not think that readers could easily assume that the "total" (fifth column) is referring to a total of the four columns immediately to the left? Seriously? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying the following. "Here is one number (column 1); here is another number (column 2); here is another number (column 3); and here is another number (column 4). Now, here is a total number (column 5), but it has nothing to do with the other four numbers (columns) that I have presented in this chart." That makes no sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Kasich dropped out

Kasich dropped out. His name is still on the active candidate list.-- (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

−Kasich has not dropped out, its been announced that he WILL, but its not official. CCamp2013 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
5pm EST is when I heard they plan to announce it, CNN, Cleveland, NBC, NY Times, and Wash Post. - Jesseschulman (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Speech completed, he's out officially now Jesse Schulman (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge May and June subsections?

Is there any reason for the June primaries to have their own subsection? With Cruz and Kasich withdrawing, those primaries won't really be contested... pbp 21:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump still has to get that magic number of delegates and Cruz and Kasich are still on ballots. I wouldn't count them out yet.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Shadow Dragon. MB298 (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait until he clinches to merge May and June. But it's relatively unlikely that Cruz or Kasich will win more than a handful of delegates from hereon out, with the possible exception of Nebraska. I live in California and I haven't even gotten my sample ballot yet! pbp 03:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Republican primary candidates from mobile is terrible

When viewing the republican primary candidates from a mobile the pictures misallign over their names. I do not know how to fix this but can someone? Tanchee06 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it for you. Thanks for the notice. — JFG talk 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Order of candidates in the Major Candidate Table

As all but one candidate has ended his campaign might it be an idea to change the default order of the candidates in the sortable table. It is sortable mind you, so anyone can personally sort in any way they want. I was thinking it might look nice to sort them chronological after when they dropped out of the race, even including the ones dropping out before in the table itself instead of a gallery below it. It would show a bit more than simply the delegate count, witch is not so important anymore with a winner. It would f.eks. show that Rubio had far more delegates even though he dropped out much earlier than Kasich, on the other hand it would be easy to see at a glance that Kasich was far more stubborn, but not as stubborn as that Gilmore guy who hang on without getting any votes at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sorting by delegates won is the most relevant measure (and secondary sort by popular vote for those who gathered only one or zero delegates), so keep it as is. And as you said, each reader's preferred custom sort is one click way :) — JFG talk 09:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump not presumptive nominee yet

Technically Donald trump is not the presumptive nominee, not having crossed the 1,237 delegate requited to win on the first ballot. While it guaranteed he will, there are still other candidates on the ballot in the upcoming states which technically means those candidates could still receive delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffmore (talkcontribs) 20:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, A Chairmann does not A Presumptive Nominee make. He simply states his and maybe the RNCs view. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
They declared Romney the presumptive nominee in late April 2012, a month before he got the majority of delegates. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Who are they? Just curious. I actually remember a month long edit war back in 2012 about this, since Paul was running against Romney all the way to the Convention. So no in 2012 it was not general consensus to use Presumptive Nominee for Romney at Wikipedia. (as Wikipedia should be very neutral and also give room for the very dedicated Paul supporters). I guess with no one running against Trump we will not have the same edit war this time. I am surprised though how much the media and the party nomenclature actually dominate a US primary election. Especially how the media is calling states or declaring winners would be unheard in many other democratic countries (and illegal in a few) Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Who are they?" RNC, the media, Wikipedia (go to the History tab and go to late April/early May 2012), etc. etc. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

He is since Kasich dropped out. NBC called it: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E29:C940:9D89:4564:CCB6:6EAC (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we are stepping into WP:CRYSTAL by declaring Trump the "presumptive nominee". I don't see how declaring that adds any encyclopedic value to the article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like more a problem on the Republican Party's end and not ours, since the chairman declared it. Also, this discussion should decide if we have Trump's standings bold on the template, as I see you removed that. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
While it is highly likely Trump will become the Republican nominee, I do believe Wikipedia should refrain from declaring winners until the race is over; in this case when Trump achieves the required amount of delegates. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
By the books, the race may not be over, but the presumptive nominee has typically been declared before the convention and we've acknowledged that in articles in the past, (like Mitt Romney in 2012, more than a month before the primaries closed). Shouldn't we list Trump as the presumptive nominee, until he becomes the official nominee? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
He is already listed as "presumptive nominee", but I oppose the inclusion. There is no encyclopedic value in stating that whatsoever. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Better Intro

The previous version is far superior to the boring and list-like version we have currently. It is hardly "opinionated and editorialized," as it literally just states the facts about the dynamics of the race - Trump's populism, the efforts to block him by Cruz and Kasich, etc. It's no more opinionated than the similar intro on the 2012 primaries page, which similarly features descriptions of that race's dynamics (the whole "anti-Romney" candidates and their fluctuating, etc.). It's the version that ultimately will look better for posterity as it broadly encompasses the overall race without getting into tedious details like listing all 17 candidates, when they dropped out, etc. (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "opinionated and editorialized" That is why the 2012 primary page is not opinionated either. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
That's just it - the previous version ISN'T opinionated and editorialized. That's why it's superior. It lists the facts of the race and its dynamics in a more interesting manner that reads like a proper intro, rather than just rattling off names and drop-out dates. (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, change it and see what happens Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed your efforts, thanks. Your extended narrative of the race is certainly worth reading but still sounds too emotional for an intro on such a sensitive topic (note that I am not calling it biased). I took the liberty to move it to the Overview section and restored an admittedly terse but strictly factual lead. Calling one or the other version "more interesting" is a subjective matter, best left as an exercise for the readers. — JFG talk 15:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I just looked at the 2012 primary intro: it is just as "boring" as the 2016 version, sticking to facts about the race dynamics, not talking about the candidates' campaigning style, rhetoric, public perception or political positions. — JFG talk 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Arizona County Map.

I noticed that Ted Cruz won Navajo County in Arizona (according to Wikipedia), but Donald Trump actually won it (According to various news sources, Foxnews, Cbs, and Cnn). Can someone please check and fix the county map and make sure the information is accurate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel.farrell31 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In a report dated April 4, The Arizona Secretary of State website lists the official results for Navajo County as Cruz 4072, Trump 3997. Vote totals on CNN's website were last updated on March 23 (one day after the voting). While major news sources update delegate totals, since that is the metric by which the contest is decided, I have found that they tend to ignore updates in votes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New Picture of Donald Trump

Noticed all other candidate pictures were more flattering, with background and candidate pleasantly smiling. There are NUMEROUS other more flattering pictures available. Please replace the picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:843:4180:3DA2:6473:B552:967B:358B (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a suggestion. Which of the numerous flattering pictures do you think is a better choice? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few better options for discussion:

File:DONALD-TRUMP2.jpg File:Rs 634x1024-150616073901-634.Donald-Trump.jl.061615.jpg 150px Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore.jpg 150px

WikiUser2244 (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally like the second one from the left the best WikiUser2244 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose all of the above. CCamp2013 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The present picture is just fine. It survived a pretty long debate in March with no less than 20 pictures to choose from. Recently it was edited to remove the microphone and background smudge, plus straightening his posture. Let's keep it that way. — JFG talk 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rubio endorsed Trump?

The article asserts that Rubio has endorsed Trump. That's news to me. Can somebody please provide a source? David Cannon (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that it says that in the article, what section are you referring to? - Jesse Schulman (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota

The state has been blackened out on the map as "uncommitted", but in the "major candidates" subsection it says Ted Cruz won. Which is it? He has either won 11 or 12 contests. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota is complicated. If you look at the hard count, the state is uncommitted, since all of the state's delegates are unbound. If you look at the soft count, which attempts to judge the strength of support revealed by each delegate, Cruz had 14 out of 28 delegates as of early April, according to The Green Papers. (By the way, AP shows 10 delegates, and CNN shows 7 delegates, so you can see how difficult this can be.) The editors of the map have decided to wait until the national convention to see how ND's delegates actually vote. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK cheers. I guess that would be the more appropriate approach before assuming other wise. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Image

How in God's name do people think it is appropriate to alter, rotate and/or photoshop a primary photo for Donald Trump is beyond me. Just because his head is tilted a bit doesn't mean you alter it and completely destroy its authenticity. Please change the photo back to the original as with the Donald Trump bio page. Thanks.-- (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Chronological order of Kasich campaign suspension in introduction

The current introduction makes it seem like Kasich suspended his campaign before the RNC declared Trump the presumptive nominee. This would be an incorrect suggestion; Kasich only suspended his campaign after Trump had been declared the presumptive nominee by the RNC. -- (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done True. Fixed it for you. — JFG talk 10:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Nebraska was a semi-closed primary but it is shown as a closed primary on the map. Needs to be fixed from dark purple to medium purple. 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Updates needed

The percent tallies need to be updated. Trump for president (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Delegate map: How to edit?

How do I edit the (vastly outdated) delegate map to reflect the recent primary results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talkcontribs) 23:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I figured out how to change the state-wide shading for the delegate and popular vote maps using a simple text editor. (I updated the five May primary states.) However, I don't know how to insert the numbers and pie charts. Those elements need someone with knowledge of SVG editing software. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are graphics not being updated?

There are currently a lot of very outdated graphics on the article, why are they no longer being updated? If I knew how to, I would do it. - Jesse Schulman (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jesseschulman: Learn. CCamp2013 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That reply is both rude and unhelpful. If you want to engage in rude imperatives, here is one for you: Teach him. There. How's that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I don't know how either. How is encouraging someone to gain more knowledge rude and unhelpful? CCamp2013 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant: "I'd like to encourage you to learn this skill for yourself, so that you can help edit the article and improve it." But indeed what you actually said was a command/order: "Learn". And the latter comes off as "Hey, if you don't like it, stop complaining and learn to do it yourself. Don't come to the Talk Page and expect us to do your work!" In other words, encouraging someone is quite different than telling/ordering them to do something. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jesseschulman: The answer to your question is that people who created them and updated them in the past haven't. You might want to message the past editors of the graphics about it. pbp 14:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jesseschulman: I'm the one who created the charts. I wrote a little script that automatically takes the info from the results table and generates graphs. Unfortunately there was a change in the table layout and my script no longer works properly. I've been meaning to fix it but I haven't had the opportunity yet. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I updated the file using the R script from description. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 05:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cruz and Kasich's colors seem to have been switched. It should be the other way around. TL565 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not really an R expert, downloaded it only because I was also getting annoyed by outdated graphs. However, the next day Abjiklɐm fixed it, and updated the script. I should really learn this new "Thank you" feature of WikiPedia to say my gratitude to him. :) I updated the graph once again, hope I didn't screw up this time. :) BytEfLUSh | Talk! 01:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the code for File:Delegate count for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries.svg. Unless the table's layout is changed gain, this code should work until the end of the primaries. I apologize for the long delay. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, but there's still a few more that are outdated.,2016_(Republican_Party).svg and,_2016_(Republican_Party).svg - Jesse Schulman (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how these ones are made so that's not on me ;) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like they were done by - I posted on his page asking him to update them - Jesse Schulman (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham Endorsed Trump?

Hi is there a reference for this endorsement, as many probably know, Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump do not get along. Thanks. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if we can officially say that Lindsey Graham is on the Trump Train, but he is privately advocating for him behind the scenes. Personally, I think that "endorsed Donald Trump" should only appear if the politician in question did so before Lyin' Ted and John Kasich both dropped out of the race. It seems somewhat silly, if not outright misleading, to include endorsements once his nomination became essentially a fait accompli. (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lindesy Graham did not endorse Donald Trump. This is probably wrong in the article. (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ideological blocs

Could a section be done on from which ideological groups each of the finalist candidates drew his support? Save Ohio and perhaps one or two other states, Trump won moderate Republicans in every contest and split "Very Conservative" voters with Ted Cruz. Trump is constantly demonized as an extremist, but he was in fact preferred by moderates in virtually every state. (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Please feel free to make such a section. Remember to use reliable and highly known sources to get everything right as it might be a subject of discussion. Happy work :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Washington isn't really "closed"

I live in Seattle. I got a ballot in the mail allowing me to choose a candidate of either party. I had to sign the envelope and check the box of the party I was voting for. Even though I'm not a registered Republican, I could have voted for a Republican candidate. I don't think this page should list it as "closed". See here for details. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Hey, I to live in the Seattle-Metro Area. I believe the reason it is a Closed Primary because in Washington State, voters must register and are affiliated with the political party of his/her choice. Although a registered Republican could vote in the Washington State Democratic Caucus, he would not then be able to vote in the Washington State Republican Primary. So I believe that it is a closed primary, but the registered voters, may vote in the primary/caucus of his/her choice. But they can only vote in the one of their choice. I would likely list the Primary as Semi-closed. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


Donald J. Trump won Washington by a staggering 76%!!!!!! Please update the map to reflect this reality. Thank you. (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So even though he is the only candidate running and the presumptive nominee 24% of his own party still didn't want to support him. Staggering... Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Mitt Romney was only pulling about 66% of the vote in May despite having clinched the nomination long before. The GOP is more united now than it was in 2012 by your logic. --DrCruse (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I do believe you are right since that was the high watermark of the failed libertarian takeover of the party. And Romney did run against Paul all the way to the convention. Trump is running against no one. It does mean that the party is united in the way that no one will work to tumble the presumptive nominee as it was done ineffective in 2012. Does it also mean that the party is united behind Trump? Or will we see candidates down the ticket running away from the presidential candidate and the establishment giving less that their full supporting Trump. Time will tell. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM TL565 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Done, and please be patient in the future. It just happened last night, and this site is updated by volunteer editors. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rubio endorsement?

This article states that Rubio said he would support Trump as the nominee, is this an endorsement? If so, should it be added to the article? GrandEllipsis (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems too tepid to me, what do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted it with this reason: Rubio had not endorsed Donald Trump. I also searched on the web for Marco Rubio endorses Donald Trump. I found no supporting evidence to prove that Rubio endorsed Trump. I would also suggest that people editing endorsements ought to provide a confirmable reference to support the endorsement. --Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Rubio announced that he would not only vote and support Trump as nominee, but he would speak on behalf of Trump at the convention. Even though he hasn't said the words "I endorse him", he announced his support for him as the nominee which qualifies, in my opinion, as an endorsement. GrandEllipsis (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I see that Rubio said that he plans to keep his pledge. Pledge Found at 3:53 in the video, I believe that this counts as an endorsement. I now believe that Rubio does not agree with everything Trump stands for; which is why he hasn't made a "big" (i.e. Sarah Palin) announcement. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Map needs updating

Anybody know how to update the map, so that California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota are colored in Trump blue? GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Do it yourself. I updated delegate count basing the numbers on AP's (assoc. press) release @ 06-09. 10stone5 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Could someone update the county-by-county graphics?

It's been a day already and they've still not been updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redflorist (talkcontribs) 00:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Do it yourself. I updates delegate count basing the numbers on AP's (assoc. press) release @ 06-09. 10stone5 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Redflorist: North Dakota and Colorado are left blank because they did not have primaries or caucuses, rather the delegates were determined at a statewide convention, and therefore have no county-by-county results. MB298 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump series tag

Does anyone have any objections to adding the Donald Trump series tag to this article? This article is linked in the Trump template and including it would be consistent with the Democratic primaries page. I also wouldn't have any objections to adding a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich template (if they existed), since these are the candidates which won at least one state. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Delegation Map Count Finally Updated!

Hey, Can someone please help convert the image to svg please. I kept receiving a MIME error. Current image I updated is a png format.

Updated Delegation Map

Thanks alot!

Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe most delegates of North Dakota have gone to Trump now, but I assume this was announced after the update. Nice job though. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Burklemore1 Thanks! Yes I see Trump has 16 and Cruz has 1 I will update! Thanks for letting me know! Update For ND Delegate count — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel.farrell31 (talkcontribs) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Some other corrections need be to made. NY should be 89 Trump and 6 Kasich, Georgia should be 42 Trump and 18 Cruz, and Rubio did not win Virgin Islands, it should be shaded gray. I'm also not sure this map is supposed to include unbound delegates. TL565 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@TL565 Okay, I will change when I have time! Thanks for letting me know. I think that as long as unbound delegates pledge support to the candidate, that they can be listed in the map. What do you think? Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Then your going to have to make lots of updates because Trump has gained a lot of them since this map was updated. I'm also not sure where 16 delegates for Trump in Colorado came from. TL565 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@TL565 I'm almost done with the changes you told me to do, and yes I was stumped by Colorado, Trump only has one delegate from Colorado so I changed it from 16 to 1. Colorado Delegate Count Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, I just made corrections myself just now, but you can still do Colorado. TL565 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I just noticed it, I will change Colorado. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@TL565 I am also wondering if there is a way to update the pie chart delegate percents. I will be working later tonight to see if there is an accurate and efficient way. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Very nice changes and corrections, always good to see someone willing to do this task. Very helpful for someone such as myself because I do not live in the U.S., but I have an intense interest in this years election. The delegate numbers on North Dakota are quite blurry in contrast to other states, but I do not consider this an issue at all. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Burklemore1 Yes! This election is quite interesting. I will see what I can do about the contrast in North Dakota. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
All updated. Ali Zifan 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Financing - add Clinton/Sanders?

Of course this is the GOP article, but would it be proper for someone to add Clinton/Sanders to the Campaign finance data table?

This would certainly be relevant, convenient for comparison.

Somebody atleast put a link there to the corresponding wiki page/section for Democratic Primaries - Campaign Finances? --Dgfduck (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to the various articles for the Democratic primaries are at the top of the article. The table you want is here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)