Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

States in the TABLE with pages yet to be created

Within a month (by March 10th) 28 states will have voted. Of them, eight do not yet have their own page (for the table herein). Who is the noble soul that created the pages that exist for states? Some of us can help if the missing eight are created. The first on the table that is missing (for Super Tuesday) is Alaska, and just above that is Alabama:

• United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama,_2016 --  Done
• United States presidential election in Alaska, 2016 --  Done
• United States presidential election in North Dakota, 2016 -- Done
• United States presidential election in Wyoming, 2016 -- Done
• United States presidential election in Kansas, 2016 --  Done
• United States presidential election in Kentucky, 2016 --  Done
• United States presidential election in Maine, 2016 -- Done
• United States presidential election in Hawaii, 2016 -- Done
• United States presidential election in Idaho, 2016 --  Done

Your wise advise is sought in this important matter. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks to Juno for starting the page for Kansas! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And Many Thanks, to ArgleBargle for createing the pages for Alaska, Kentucky, and Idaho!!! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JP (Jp16103), for adding North Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, and Hawaii !!!! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC) -- Some later states may be missing.

It looks like all state Republican Primary sites are in place with the singular exception of New Mexico. As everyone knows, President Obama was only one off when he said there were 57 states voting. What he meant was that there are 50 states, 5 provinces, plus District of Columbia (Washinton D.C.) for a total of 56, not 57 voting states/provinces/DC. The only other missing site is: United_States_presidential_election_in_U.S_Virgin_Islands,_2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Viz: New Mexico is missing (voting on the last day, June 7th).

Canada has provinces, and USA has territories. Of the 11 territories, five are inhabited, and approximately four million territory-islanders are U.S. citizens. -- AstroU (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Refer to Territories_of_the_United_States#Current_territories -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegate Bar Graph

I think it would be helpful, particular with Super Tuesday and a large volume of delegates coming up, to include a bar graph in the overview section showing the current delegate counts and the goal line of 1237 delegates needed to win outright. I would do it, but I am not sure how to. This is just a suggestion - thank you for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.108.204 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

When would you like to see the horizontal thermometer bar? -- AstroU (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sticking Template:Composition bar into the main candidates/results table in the delegates column might work, but is also probably pointless until Super Tuesday:

82 / 2,472

17 / 2,472

16 / 2,472

etc.—Nizolan ^(talk) 21:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree it would be an excellent graphic, similar to:
http://www.electionprojection.com/republican-nomination-delegates/
If other editors agree. And I think it would be good to put the bars (1) under each of the top candidates still in the race; or (2) above the candidates, at the top of the "candidates/results" table section; or (3) at the very bottom of the article, just about "See also" since it leads into the national convention. Putting it in at all depends on consensus and waiting until delegates are counted up and documented next week is best. It will be very appropriate to consider inclusion between now and then, say Thursday or Wednesday. -- AstroU (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Before a man builds a house, he considers the cost (and vision of the end results) -- Bible. So it would need to be updated as delegates are added after voting. And the alternative is the ElectionProjection site that is referenced in our 'External links' section. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be better if the bars went only up to 1237 since that is the goal to reach. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty likely that one of them will get more delegates than 1237 though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly it is not pretty likely that one candidate will get more than 1237 delegates this time around. It might still be likely that Trump will get more than 1237 delegates, but it is also likely that four candidates will share the delegates. Trump, Cruz and Rubio will get the lions share and Kasich will get the remnant (mainly Ohio) paving the way to a brokered convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the mathematics are fairly strongly against Trump not receiving a majority of delegates—he is leading in all but a small handful of states. I guess we'll see on Tuesday. Either way, I think the total for the composition bars should be changed to 2,472 when graphically practicable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

If someone reaches the threshold then I agree we can switch to 2472. Until then 1237 is a better option in my opinion. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Abjiklam. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not confuse the WP readers into thinking the larger number must be reached. After the simple majority to take the Nomination is reached, it will be easy to switch to the full delegate count (1,237 is easy to remember) and (2,472 is the full delegation for Cleveland.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The estimate on the chart is that Trump has 315 out of the necessary 1,237 delegates. 315/1,237 = .2546, which would be 25.5%. Is there some other method that's been used to calculate the 12.7%? Using simple division, the percentages should be as follows: 25.5% for Trump, 16.6% for Cruz, 8.6% for Rubio, 2.2% for John Kasich, and 0.6% for Ben Carson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3665:1140:A0BC:2FEA:39:3852 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone add Arkansas's results to the county-by-county map?

It hasn't been filled out, and I don't know how to fill in the individual counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redflorist (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There are editing tools or you can even use paint as long as its the right colors and format. Also, we should color in the states in black or something that dont hold a preference poll.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism of infobox

Someone vandalized the infobox to show Rubio with 512 delegates, Kasich with 127, Trump with 37, and Cruz with 33. Since I have no idea how to edit an infobox, someone who does should fix it. 129.101.91.240 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wyoming

It was one of the Super Tuesday states, but I can't seem to find results anywhere. Do they not release them until later? MB298 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wyoming Straw poll goes until March 10, 2016.LiveFreeC16 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The top pictures

The last edit of the top pictures seem to have dropped Dr Ben Carson off, which is inconsistent from the next grouping of pictures which has Carson among those with active campaigns. This is unfortunate. Can someone drop off Kasich and put Dr Carson back? He says he is staying in the race, and "is just getting started." Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why drop Kasich, though? He hasn't quit either (though many want him to) and he has more votes and more delegates than Carson. If only four guys are represented, it makes sense that they should be Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich. pbp 23:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The template at the top of each page for the last 2 nominating contests have consistently had the top 4 candidates in the template. There is no reason to be different with this contest either. Carson is still in the race and if/when he moves to the 4th postition, then he will be exchanged out with whoever he replaces.LiveFreeC16 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the last two nomination contests article have only ended with top 4 candidates after the election was over. During the primaries they had all different forms. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I only recently noticed Carson was omitted. Before that, five were included. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually just added Carson into the template. Would anyone object to adding Jeb! since he's number 6 in the race? LiveFreeC16 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeb's been out of the race since February 20th. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we ought to keep any candidate who is still running, and only remove him when he has officially ended his campaign. People who come onto this page want to know who are the candidates competing, and these pictures will be the first information they get: they have to be reliable. AirbusAviation (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting Dr Ben Carson back. He just picked up three delegates in Nevada tonight and says he is staying in the race. Some of us think he is running for VP, all the way to an open convention. If delegates cannot agree, Dr Carson could be their choice. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just now on FoxNews TV (and elsewhere on the campaign trail) Dr Ben Carson talks about God, Providence, and doing the right thing, not the expedient/political thing. He says that only God knows what is going to happen as people begin to realize the gravity of "America going to the edge of the cliff" and it looks to me like Dr Carson will be 'in' all the way to Cleveland. It's a four-man race. Why would he drop out when the other top candidates want to take each other out? We know some of his funding was misused and he replaced some staff, but money is not necessary to stay in the race. His wisdom appeals to voters so expect him to continue to rise as Ohio Governor Kasich drops out. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the latest polls Carson will only pick up a few candidates in two states (Minnesota and Virginia). In all other contest he will not reach the threshold. Of course only Carson knows if Carson will continue running. In 2012 we kept those candidates that was active and the suspended candidates that had won a state in the Template. If all suspended candidates should be removed it could end up with only one person in the Template and that would of course be silly. In the end when all the primaries have finished the template have to look nice, so what we chose this time around the future will tell. For now it is a good idea to keep all active candidates in the template. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Today, Kasich says he will not accept being the VP of anyone. Will he drop out after he loses to Trump in Ohio, his home state where he trails by double-digits? Just now, on TV, Dr Carson says, "We are raising more money than last month; they want me to stay in; I am in this for them, and will be in until the final [resolution] whatever that may be." He will stay in to Convention July 18-21. What I am saying, the pictures at the top will be down to four after 'Winner-Take-All' starts happening this month on the 15th. Ohio will go to Trump, in my crystal-clear-ball. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So with Ben Carson 'suspending' and not going to the debate tomorrow evening, we will see how the voting for Ben Carson goes, and then see what happens at the open convention in Cleveland where they decide (1) the Republican platform, (2) the Nominee, and (3) the VP for the Republican ticket. -- AstroU (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Grouping the states on the timeline

There are natural groupings, like (1) February early voting states; (2) Super Tuesday; … and up to June.

• February early voting states: {Iowa, NH, SC, NV} for 67 delegates;
• Super Tuesday, March 1st {…} for 661 delegates;
• After Super Tues through May 12th {KS, KY, LA, ME, PR, HI, ID, MI, MS…} for 356 delegates;
• ‘Winner take all’ starts May 15th, rest of May {FL,IL,MO,I,NC,OH} for 466 delegates;
• April voting {NY,CT,DE,MD,PA,RI} for 267 delegates;
• May voting {IN,NE, WV,OR, WA} for 195 delegates;
• June voting {CA,MT,NJ,NM, SD} for 303 delegates.

This should add to 2,472 total delegates going to Cleveland Convention, (but adds instead to 2,315).

• These are very interesting details, got to love the maps, rush to 1,237 (for myself and WP readers).

What do you think? Let’s look ahead. Readers want to see the story line, now and in history. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments? -- AstroU (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Importance of turnout

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

February Early Primary voting turnout

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

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

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

Colorado Caucuses

According to this article on the Colorado Caucuses today:

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

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

But according to the table here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delegate for withdrawn candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who have the plurality in the Vermont Delegation

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

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

Carson Color on the County Results Map

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain unpledged delegates (168+269)

To anyone who understands the nuances of the RNC:

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

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

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

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

2nd and 3rd place finish

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

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

voting method ... paperles etc

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

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

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

Are states getting penalized in the 2016 cycle?

The "Schedule and process" section includes:

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

States won organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands caucuses day

VI supposed to make caucuses on March 19 under "winner-takes-all-9-delegates" system. However they missed submission deadline and were forced to keep last cycle date and system. See [1] for explanation and [2] for prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) --Mgar (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong primary types

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

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

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

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

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

Carson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney and Establishment Republicans

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

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

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

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

Nebraska delegate count error

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary Schedule

For the second time last week I noticed the completed primaries were shaded in dark gray, which would result in the entire table dark gray after elections are over. So I reversed the colors to make the completed primaries light gray which of course makes more sense. After updating the code somebody went back and edited it all dark gray again. Now suddenly today someone made it the way I had changed it in the first place. We need to be fair with each other for changes that are logical and rational without going back and forth. If my change ended up to be what is accepted today, then why was it not accepted last week? Same thing happened when I updated the winning candidate shading in results table. It was fine, then it wasn't, now it is again. I would like to know why and who is reversing valid edits, then copying them back as their own edits? Itonix (talk)

For what it's worth I think your formatting is a good idea; I imagine the reverting is just because people tend to associate darker shading with past events, not one individual trying to undo your editing specifically. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Guam

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

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

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

I agree that Guam should not be deemed as a "contest won" by anyone (yet, anyway). To do otherwise would be misleading.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Have only just read this discussion. I added GU to Cruz's tally after watching Cruz himself declare that he has nine wins, just after 1:53-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEmm3AjmSk If the consensus is still that we should not give GU to Cruz, despite him touting it as a victory, then feel free to remove my edit. :) I shan't edit Popular Vote or Projected Delegates, in case I'm wrong to include Guam. Alrewas (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I see that somebody has corrected my erroneous edit. That's fine, but I am nonetheless left somewhat confused by Cruz's very emphatic statement that he has nine wins (1:53-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEmm3AjmSk). Does anybody have a link to a source which clarifies this matter? Alrewas (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And , although Cruz doesn't actually say nine victories but simply says that he's beaten Trump "nine" times, he clearly means nine victories, otherwise he would have included Minnesota where he came second but beat Trump into third place, which would have made it "ten" times.Alrewas (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

winner-take-all vs. winner-take-all/winner-take-most hybrid states

It appears that the section about after March 15th being all winner-take-all is not quite correct. For this to happen in most of these states, the candidate must receive >50% of the vote total, otherwise they are winner-take-most. According to this site, [4] only Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Dakota are truly winner-take-all. The remainder are hybrids, only winner-take-all if a certain trigger percentage is reached, otherwise, they are winner-take-most. For example, see this discussion about Missouri: "If a single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the state's overall vote, that person will receive all 52 delegates. However, if none of the four contenders have a clear majority, it will turn into a winner-take-most situation, with 12 delegates being awarded to the Republican with the most votes in the state, and the remaining 40 split up by congressional district (the winner of each district receiving five delegates)." http://www.bustle.com/articles/147266-is-the-missouri-primary-winner-take-all-the-show-me-state-has-a-complex-set-of-rules This matches with what CNN and MSNBC have been reporting. So this needs to get changed accordingly.Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So Ohio is a winner-take-all in the statewide contest for 9 At-large delegates and it is a winner-take-all contest in 8 Congregational Districts with 3 CD and 2 AL delegates taken by the winner in that CD. How does that become a winner-take-most contest? I truly believe that we should add back the line with how many delegate awarding Congregational Districts each candidate have won. It was removed from the Supertuesday tablet for unknown reasons. Only considering State contests and not the CD contests that some states have is to simplified. A good example is California. It looks just like a simple winner-take-all. But out of 172 (!) delegates only 13 are at-large given to the candidate that wins the state. The rest are winner-take-all with 3 delegates for each of Californias 53 Congregational Districts. And in the most diverse of all the states in the union the difference between the electorate in two CD can be bigger than between many US states. So yes, CA is a straight forward winner-take-all, but the CA primary is not one contest but 54 contests. It has potential to make a very different ending this cycle than ever before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion because some people seem to be interpreting the at-large allocation method column ("AL") as a description of the entire primary or caucus. Not sure it can be clarified further, though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"How does that become a winner-take-most contest?" It could become that if one candidate won the statewide total vote by winning a large plurality in one or two CD's, while the candidate who finished second won the remaining CD's narrowly. (It might even be possible for the second place finisher to gain more delegates than the first place finisher in such a scenario.) The rules for the delegate allocation can be complex, and vary from state to state. We should be careful about using labels that are inaccurate and prove to be so.Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly why our table do not state only one type of contest for each state but two. One for the At-large and one for the CD. You are right this is a special case where a winner-take-all in both AL and CD has the trigger that is very popular in winner-take-most states. In these states the trigger will change the state from proportional to winner-take-all. The very core of the type Winner-take-most. But in Missouri the trigger will simply annul the CD races. That does not make it a winner-take-most state. It could have been worth mentioning in an footnote, but since it seems the trigger never will activated I am not sure what good it will do now. The question must be: How can we even more clearly explain that in some states there is not on race but races in every CD and in the State. This is a very democratic method to choice if you state is diverse (like New York with the city in the south and more rural areas in the north) and many states choice to use this option in varies ways. You might say that the second place finisher will get more delegates, but that is because he is only second place in the state contest, a contest that are not all that important in Missouri who have gone even further and assign AL delegates to be allocated in the CD. This is already in a footnote. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Christie endorsing Trump

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

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

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

Two things: over on the TALK of the campaign of Trump, it has a quote from David Duke where he says he never endorsed Trump, FYI. Also, "Yes" it would be good to include the ongoing endorsement of Chris Christie. He flew down and introduced Trump when he spoke in Texas and will continue to campaign for him. -- AstroU (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The link on David Duke (on his radio show) saying he never endorsed Donald Trump is very interesting to read. Talk:Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#David_Duke_Never_Endorsed_Donald_Trump -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) -- And I agree that the endorsement of Chris Christie is also very interesting and important. It can be watched and included. I saw him with Trump in Ohio today.

Trump main photo

Can someone fix the Trump photo? It's not up to Wikipedia's standards I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead referenced another press release photo that is a more fair representation for a front-runner candidate. Let's watch it. Itonix (talk) — comment added 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That image you changed it to is not freely-licensed. Therefore, it can't be used when there are freely-licensed images of the same person available. Please see this for more detail. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Understand the licensing difficulty and tried again with improved photo from same exact town hall gallery of previous photo. Doing my best for fairness. Itonix (talk) — comment added 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The photo is fine the way it is. No one was complaining about it. The photo you uploaded is not an improvement. TL565 (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If Donald J. Trump becomes president, his photo can be improved at that time. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) -- "The victors write the final history!"

Wyoming

Wyoming is listed under March 1, but its caucus is actually today, March 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:580:2D78:9880:CB1:82E2:2C53 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be listed for March 12 when delegates are chosen and matches date of the results tables. Makes no sense to list Wyoming for March 1 with some technicality. Itonix (talk) — comment added 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The description at the top of the table states "The date given in the first column is the date of the popular primary or caucus in a particular state or territory". The popular precinct caucus in Wyoming took place on March 1, but did not allocate delegates directly—all stated in the table. Also, if it were listed under March 12 then there would be nowhere to list the date of the precinct caucuses that elected the county convention delegates meeting today. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Something more is needed, since this appears to be screwed up.Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole idea with this tablet is that it is a sortable tablet. In other words you can sort it exactly as you like yourself. If you like Wyoming to be sorted under March 12 then you can simply use that colum and you will see when all delegates are ELECTED in many different states, maybe you will be surprise of what you learn. The first colum (default) is the date of the popular primary or caucus. It would be impossible to list Wyoming under the date where they allocated delegates because they DONT allocated delegates. Neither does some other states. The schedule tablet has been designed (back in 2012 by many different editors over some time) to be a all purpose all information tablet. Might I suggest that the information about the Wyoming delegate process can be added to the tablets that comes before the Schedule tablet in the article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox map and "contests won"

This does raise another point about Wyoming: on the infobox map it's currently filled in with Cruz's colour, but I'm not sure this makes sense as Cruz did not win a popular vote, he won a convention (which doesn't even allocate the majority of the state's delegates, only 12 out of 29). This seems to have been confused in some of the media as well. I'm also sceptical about listing Wyoming as a "contest won" for him in the results table for the latter reason—the majority of delegates haven't been allocated yet. Any thoughts on what to do about this? —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Until now he had won nine county conventions and will probably win the state convention too. But right now no one have won Wyoming since there is still 14 delegates to be elected and all candidates could stil theoretically win the state. Might the fact that Cruz has been said to have won the popular vote be based on the fact that all county convention delegates had to state their preference before getting elected at the caucuses? Somebody may have counted county convention delegates? Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point; TGP states that "candidates for delegates to the county conventions declare their presidential preference (including undecided)", so the preferences would have been stated in the popular vote. Unfortunately as far as I know no tally has been released, so whether Cruz or "unbound" actually won the popular vote is a bit speculative. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The candidate "uncommitted" does have a really god election this year. Just imagen if he or she would have been on the ballot in all states Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that popular vote is not what is important. The delegate count is what is important. Yes, the Wyoming voting is interesting, and a good place to watch (in addition to the Green Papers) is the other WP entry, Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Wyoming. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Campaign violence becomes an issue

Mitt Romney rants several times and goes on TV several times to say he will do anything to prevent Trump from being president. But I know he wouldn't condone violence. Instead he participates in 'secret' meeting to plot. Then Soros funds a million dollars to MoveOn people who create violence, and some of them have Bernie Sanders slogans. Sanders says Trump incites this and is a lyer. Ted Cruz and Kasich accuse Trump also. All that Trump has done is tell the truth that many frustrated Americans are feeling, hence his leading Republican polling and voting. Trumpsters might say, "If you don't feel the same way and speak strongly about it like Trump, then you don't know the dire situation in America and in the world!" Anyway, it is good to have one sentence already in the Article, for the current (Mid-March) primary rallies and voting. -- AstroU (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump is turning the protestors to his advantage, since they appear to be the same "Rent-a-Mob" that were bussed into Fergusen MO and other places. It only boosts the popularity of Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Blown out of proportion by media, as expected.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

"Please change Ben Carson's candidate color on the table of delegates from light blue to no color because all of the other candidates who have dropped out have lost their candidate color indicating which primaries have been won by which candidates." Ross.mesnick (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done—Fair idea, but the reason Carson's colour is still there is that unlike the other withdrawn candidates he won a county (in Alaska), so his colour appears in the county results map. If Rubio or Kasich were to drop out tomorrow, their colour would also remain. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in fact, Rubio did 'suspend' this evening after losing in Florida, and thus "dropped out", for now. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii wrong color: Trump won that, but it's yellow for Cruz.

Regarding the map on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#/media/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results,_2016.svg

It looks like Hawaii is wrong: Donald Trump won that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii,_2016 , but it's yellow, the color for Ted Cruz.

Hawaii wrong color: Trump won that, but it's yellow for Cruz. Plz check all states to make sure they're all accurate & updated.96.59.141.122 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's incorrect? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The yellow separate one is Alaska, the separate one in pieces is Hawaii which is blue for Trump.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Florida

Someone will have to update since the results show Donald Trump won Florida. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We can cheer on the person/team making the updates; there are other 'wins' that also need to be included in the updating. An eager audience awaits. GO TEAM .!. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-Trump" vs "Anti-Establishment"

This is the Elephant in the room, the stinky elephant. It needs to be discussed here on the TALK page to get it right in the Article. Both sides are very, very adament. Look at Mitt Romney leading the Establishment charge, saying that in his very heart and soul he opposes Trump, and that raises Trump popularity by 11%. What is it that Trump says that resonates so much with Trump supporters? The answer is very clear to Trumpsters, but The Establishment GOP doesn't have a clue. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Super Tuesday Numbers

It seems that different sources like to name today in different ways. Some say it is number two some say it is number three. I was wondering was there a wide use of the name Super Tuesday II before today and when was it? Should we not use the names at all and if so what should we do? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the March 15 and late March sections should be merged back together; it doesn't seem sensible to me to have an entire section for two states and a territory. This would avoid having to label March 15 in the section header, and we can mention the various names given in the media (Super Tuesday II, 3 etc.) in the text. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

why not add late march to april as time goes by. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Some called March 12th as a 'super Tuesday' but that is in the past and can be forgotten. "Super Tuesday II" is now the beginning of 'winner-take-all' voting option. One way to group the remaining voting is by month, that is to say, for April, May, and June. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina

Is only at 5% reporting with a 5-6% difference. Why jumping to conclusion so fast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.70.118 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we are waiting an appropriate amount of time, as the news of 'winners' is reported the next morning. -- AstroU (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Missouri

As of now, Trump is the assumed winner of the Missouri primary. However, considering it was the difference of about 1,700 votes between a nearly 1,000,000 population participation rate, there will likely be an official recount. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Various news sources have now called Missouri as Trump's. Tdl1060, do you have any materials to back up why the state's "not called"? I mean, you'll probably get reverted in a moment, so it's best to discuss here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

When it is close, they take time to recount and certify the results. -- AstroU (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up

The number of delegates assigned to the candidates on March 15 does not seem to include Missouri as 52 delegates are missing. Also, if you add up all Trump's results in the different sections, you get 654, but the summation at the top says 691. I assume that Missouri is included there and I assume that Cruz' results also needs to be updated. 83.233.207.16 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The Super Tuesday II table isn't up to date. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Color codes for Paul, Bush, Fiorina and Huckabee

Paul, Bush, Fiorina and Huckabee all have color codes on one of the maps on this page, File:Delegation Vote ,2016 (Republican Party).svg. What are the codes for those colors? I'm trying to add them to their description (since their colors appear), but do not know the codes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump picture

The new Trump image is ridiculous in size compared to the pictures of the other candidates. It makes the infobox look terrible. Besides, there was nothing wrong with the old one. I propose that it be changed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: See Commons:File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg. The new image has been continuously uploaded by someone as possible intentional disruption, and will probably be permanently reverted soon. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Steel1943, thank you for your note. I see that the image has been changed back. Display name 99 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: @Display name 99: Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump. MB298 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Green Papers

I know we used Green Papers in 2012 and I love the site, but how is it a reliable source?--Metallurgist (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, FiveThirtyEight has quoted it before, and I think that's considered a reliable source. --207.190.8.93 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's in fact been cited in a fair number of academic publications ([5]). —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, altho they dont seem to provide much information about who they are. Its good to see they are trusted.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Trump "poll vs vote" gap

There are a few main reasons that Trump wins with more votes than pre-vote polling indicates will happen. Is this discussed and mentioned in the article? -- AstroU (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

He has underperformed enormously in some contests compared to polling (most obviously Idaho, Kansas and Oklahoma, also Louisiana to a lesser extent), so I'm not sure it's generally true that he wins with more votes than polling indicates. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It seem Cruz win in every place where paperless voting is implemented. Do anybody know what are the processor stepping in voting mashines and wat ware the mac address prefixes for net interface in those systems? The bandwith crossing backbone swiches captured is redy to filter. 70.211.65.219 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Still, there are reasons. Expect him to 'under-perform' in Utah. I guess it works both ways. -- AstroU (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohio delegate selection rules

According to CNN,Trump won 30+ counties in Ohio: http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/oh/

He must have won some CD's, which according to this source had accounted for 48 delegates: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OH-R

In 2012, Romney, Santorum, and Paul split Ohio's delegates: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/ohio

Did Ohio change the rules to benefit Kasich? If so, does that merit mention here?Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohio is a simple winner-take-all state, as stated in this article—whoever comes top in the state-wide vote gets all the delegates. You are correct that this is a change in the rules compared to 2012. The nuance is that some of these delegates still technically represent Congressional Districts, and the ballot paper remained unchanged, so there was a slot on the ballot paper for the CD preference and a slot for the at-large preference. But they are all pledged to support whoever came top in the state-wide vote. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any RS as to when and why this was done? Appears very much that is was done to benefit Kasich since he hasn't won anywhere else except in his own state. Someone must have commented on the changeLt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

TGP links to this article which suggests you're right (and it happened in September 2015, apparently). Not sure where we could mention it in the article, though—also worth bearing in mind that a lot of states changed their rules from 2012 and we don't want to have to comment on each one. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So where else were the rules changed to benefit someone in his home state?Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, there were 17 candidates at one point so I imagine there are potentially others. I'm not objecting to talking about the rule changes in the article per se, I'm just not sure how we'd go about it—what's your suggestion? —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, "Kasich benefited from the recent rule change to win all 66 delegates in his home state." Since this is only win so far, it is fair and accurate.Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Alaska: does the page need to be updated:

It seems the number of delegates has changed but this page has not kept place?

• http://juneauempire.com/state/2016-03-17/rubios-withdrawal-means-trump-ties-cruz-alaska
• http://midnightsunak.com/2016/03/17/alaska-gop-give-rubio-delegates-cruz-trump/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 March 2016‎ (UTC)

TGP has updated their totals and I've updated this page accordingly. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump skips FoxNews debate (in Utah)

You can Google-search to info, including the W-Post: "Donald Trump said Wednesday morning that he will skip next week's Republican presidential debate because he already has plans to deliver a "very major speech."

"I'm making a very major speech in front of a very important group of people," he said on "Fox & Friends," later confirming that the remarks will be delivered before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Trump said his speech at the powerful lobbying group's conference in Washington "was scheduled a while ago."
-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC) -- He will let Ted Cruz make the points debating the Establishment candidate, John Kasich.

Kasich actually pulled out shortly afterwards and it ended up being cancelled. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Cruz did not have any afterthoughts, otherwise he would debate himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.65.219 (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll see what happens Monday, the day before elections Tuesday. I thought FoxNews should have anounced holding a 'townmeeting' with just Ted Cruz and video. -- AstroU (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Voting is today (Tuesday) and we'll see if polling for Donald Trump (at 11%) can be exceeded in voting. He was right to not debate in Utah, even if he didn't have a more important opportunity elsewhere. Utah will follow Idaho in going strongly for Ted Cruz. It looks like Trump will have the coasts, east and west, with greater populations and delegates, plus the South, and Cruz will have a splattering in the middle, but a lot in middle America going to Trump as his popularity only increases. Soon, we will be to the point where Cruz vs Trump momentum will become obvious, especially as we now are in the 'winner-take-all' option for voting. The New York Times has a great graphic showing the most/least voting summations.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

California Delegate Allocation

In the “Primary schedule” chart, the delegate allocation for California is listed as “Winner-take-all.” This makes it sound like all of the delegates are awarded to the candidate that wins a plurality statewide. However, according to the California Republican Party website, only a small fraction of the 172 delegates are awarded based on the overall winner. The vast majority are awarded at the Congressional District level:

“California’s election laws award delegates on a winner take all basis for each Congressional District, which means the candidate that wins each Congressional District during the June 7, 2016 Primary Election will receive all three delegates and alternate delegates for that district. In addition California has 10 at-large delegates and alternate delegates which are awarded to the overall winner of the statewide vote.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.34.13 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an instance of the confusion I've mentioned before of the "at-large" column of the table being taken as a description of the state as a whole. The primary schedule has separate columns for at-large and congressional district delegates. These are both allocated winner-take-all, with the CD delegates making up the majority. The table is correct on this point. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan. My mistake. As you pointed out, the table is correct. I was confused by the way the columns are organized. Thank you for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.34.13 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References