Talk:2012 United States presidential election in Nevada

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

Annonymous[edit]

Anonymous is it a reliable source? see#12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one do not nedd this[edit]

Clark county total 52% of all Nevada registered republican voters. Clark county voters were counted till late night 2/6 thus 31 hours after Mitt Romeny early victory speach celebrating unconfirmed results. Some Clark couty officials: David Gibbs, Woody Stroupe, Cindy Lake, Mitchell Cain, Tim Williams, Stacey Barrack, Wesley Cornwell, Linda Bronstein or Michael Spencer confirmed some irregulariies while press erroneously called first regular ballots counting - a recount.

Before one will debate what she/he need/vid vel dub necessary or dump unnecessary, some citations; for *Gibbs[1]

  • Stroupe [2] said it took his five teams of two officials each four hours to count ballots from eight of 40 caucus sites ". So we know there was involved 10 officials (Who they are?) and counted for 4 hours.


Clark county Rp boards members[3], npc. central comitette[4] (coupled [5]) act108 vote setup [6] R124-11 R111-11 9+1+1=11 too[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Allegations of Fraud Whatsoever![edit]

http://www.upl.co/uploads/1328589539989.jpg

Everything's legit in Nevada, and how dare you suggest otherwise.--66.188.134.149 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This graph require logaritmic scale, liniear do not reflect the NV decline 2008 to 2012. The gople perfected astonishing results. scrachpad

The Mormons Jews issue[edit]

There was cut of important and commonly not very know fact, well referenced, in the cut out fragment. *One rationale of it is factual *second logical since it provide understanding why Abelton donate no Gingrich and not to Romney. And the article show "a Mormon question" many patriotic Jews must be aware. Mormons are a problems for Israel they consider themselv equal to Jews and are able to send 30,000 missionaries to convert Jews in Israel and buitld they churches on every prominent hiltop. When Romney express warseling support for Israel ('so nobody will dare to stop them') he do not want protect 'Judah Jews' but convert thyey land for Mormons. Romney is not average Mormon he is highranked clergy, the bishop and apostole decendent.

  • Adelson distances himself from GOP special caucus decision</r ef>. This late caucus allowed a timely vote for Seventh Day Adventists<r ef> [htttp://www.wesh.com/r/30376598/detail.html] </r ef> and the majority of Nevada Mormons<r ef>abcnews</r ef> but nobody considered majority the Nevada Mormons<r ef>abcnews</r ef> who sincerly believe they are the true Jews<r ef>"Mormons see themselves as Jews of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Joseph, whereas Jews are thought by them to be of the descendants of Judah. This means that Mormons hold themselves as coequal in status to "other Jews," which is why to them all non-Mormons except Jews are "gentiles."" Resolving the Mormon Issue Daniel J. Elazar Jerusalem CfPA</r ef>. Caucus organizers were required to sign affidavits (under penalty of perjury) that they would attend the vote at the Adelson caucus. There was only one nationwide televised (by CNN) public vote-count. That Adelson caucus count provided the following ...

Please improve the fragment or disscus. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN is a problem here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 99.90.197.87[edit]

You seem to want to contribute a lot which is good, but your English is difficult to follow. Please take such stuff to talk first, and then the community can help you with spelling and sentence structure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a speling error please put it to talk then we can spellchek it and you can put itback fixed. The first impression is you have the problems with longer sentences (the conceptualization problem) and tend to use simplistic slang which is not very appropriate in deeper description about souls and interreliguis issiues where layers of delicacy is more recomended over strighforward expressions. The fact you have problem to elaborate what you can not understand (or fix if you see easy) prove you can't take part in the discussuin since if you questioning something or if tending to improve you should take some initative to at least signalise, mark somehow, the part fo phrase you consider. Quite possibly one may have impresion you do not consider anything or consider sufacial emptines not worh prolonger reflection and main efort of your outputed bytestream is unspokable distraction. (if you cant read it consideror leter on comp +1 with spellchecker this draft may be more clrifiaied) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first impression is you have the problems with longer sentences..." That should be "you have a problem..."
  • "layers of delicacy is more recomended" you spelled recommended incorrectly,
  • "The fact you have problem to elaborate what you can not understand (or fix if you see easy) prove you can't take part in the discussuin " You spelled discussion incorrectly. "The fact you have problem to elaborate what you can not understand" is a gibberish. One cannot elaborate on things one does not understand. "The fact you have problem to...." is grammatically incorrect as well.
  • "Quite possibly one may have impresion you do not consider anything or consider sufacial emptines not worh prolonger reflection and main efort of your outputed bytestream is unspokable distraction. (if you cant read it consideror leter on comp +1 with spellchecker this draft may be more clrifiaied" What do "suficial" "unspokable" "emptines" "consideror" "leter" and "bytestream" mean? "Quite possibly one may have the impression.." is probably what you meant there. As you can see. to parse this kind of stuff is very very difficult. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you schould see, you can grsp it! Next time try in memory reading. N+1 reading only 3 x... Answer is considered egoistic lerning aid and social distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
schould, lerning and grsp are not words. "Next time try in memory reading" is nonsensical as is "N + 1 reading only 3x..." Please learn to write in English. You are making my point for me, again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False deleteion by Artut Rubin[edit]

False deleteion by Artut Rubin [8] he acuse 'unsorced' . Let just use broadr quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically unsourced, but sourced only to blogs (not associated with reliable publications), and definitately about living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly :aim of factual supresion. Clinicaly wrong answer , meander and cover up. The source he put about Mormons is{out of citation}. Digest another source |'"special Republican caucus" for "Jewish population."[9]| where proving the narow ethnic voters supresion at the NUR FUR party and did not intendended to include all sincere Mormonic Jews only the imposers. | How taste like? ha. Shure marginal publication, but the provisional party do not require more glamorus PR and nobody sane will try to ask. Fact is, Adelson event show high antysemantic stereotypic dislike for sincere Mormon Jews; in words " did not look like a Jew". If u want response first put it, rev-it back . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think (with your horrible grasp of English it is hard to tell) that you are accusing Arthur Rubin of attempting to censor you. No, he is trying to follow policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF[edit]

Cynism he Artorobio removed sources and the stuffed with {citation nedded}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I tagged with {{cn}} only those statements made after the "sources". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He do not get sense thus so say 'nonsense. L&S. Category: reply to Nonfalsifable distraction. (question to all put more emotion or what?) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Do other may lease hope He may bring a handle so his reply (t56) may be answered somehow othervise? (question inserted after recles provocative lamly unconsideret reply pressed by f*oo booton. This is sincere try to enchance conversational culture betwen limposer and tmind.[reply]
With skeave looking at above strig, He may want to paly on infinite confirmative aproximation. To argue what kind of tag he used on fak. Empty furiatory rabetoric trick, cheep trick, ho opla hoples. This website sucks by types what types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, again, makes absolutely no sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another catastration of content[edit]

One post data are for him not necessesary. Another synin for who do not need pedia, do not need datetails. Some boses said more people know more will think (kill them/block them). If purpose of this pedia is disinformation or propaganda then resoning agreabale. But what is rhe purpse. of the pedia? To the one remowing this. In Another refs is about whithe balots which were tossed away. So the info the original color was ble is somehow important. Even stupid will distinguisch blue -whithe, . So du you see the significance of the info? What color of toilet paper you schrach?

State convention[edit]

What do we do with this? It appears that the delegates are supposed to be bound, but this does say that Paul won 22-3. Also, it says even without that, the proportional allocation would be 17-8 (not incl superdelegates) because S&G dropped out. So what exactly should we do?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do anything with it. From the article: "At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So ::most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney."

In the big picture, it's a meaningless result, since Romney is entitled to his 20 delegate votes at the 2012 GOP national convention. The NV delegates are bound by the Feb. 4th results. Guy1890 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is more if we go with the four way split or the 20-8?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the results in the table to the number of delegates bound to each candidate. I will add a note about the technicality, but including the 22-6 figure is rather deceptive, particularly with the pink highlights. My guess is anyone visiting the page would have thought Paul was getting 22 votes from Nevada at the RNC, which is not the case. I will add a note about how the vast majority of these delegates are Paul supporters. Wikiditm (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul won Nevada?[edit]

May 6: [10] Jørgen88 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't. From the article: "Sean Spicer, spokesperson for the Republican National Committee (RNC) told Hotsheet that Paul's victory 'is not going to be a problem' because the Nevada Republican Party's rules state most delegates are 'bound' to Romney since he won the statewide caucuses."

It's basically a meaningless result, since NV's delegates are bound by the Feb. 4th results. Guy1890 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely meaningless - the delegates can vote on party platforms, organization, and structure (in addition to being unbound if nobody wins on the first round - though this is very unlikely.) It's probably better to display the bound values up front, leaving a note about this detail. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election in Nevada, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_Nevada&oldid=1196624938"