Talk:Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries

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

Article title[edit]

Wouldn't this article be better placed at Results of the 2008 U.S. Republican Party presidential primaries. Note also that only proper nouns should be capitalized. --Aranae (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I suggest this be merged and redirected to Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 --Elliskev 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I really don't see any good reason for these to be seperate. Jon (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support - It is a long list, and would take up too much space otherwise. – Zntrip 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support - I agree with Zntrip, but when I first went looking for this info, I arrived at the other article, and had to look hard for a link at the very bottom to this one. I'll work on making that link more prominent on both the Republican and Democratic article sets. Tim P (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support - I agree with the above arguments. This article is great separate. Dan (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support. These two articles are huge and complex. Merging them into one would be a nightmare. Both of these articles are going to be getting bigger and fatter in February. Kingturtle (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my suggestion. This article has grown considerably and would, indeed, be difficult to merge now. I think it stands on its own. --Elliskev 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate results[edit]

I'm not quite sure how we should put the results of the winners of the Caucuses/Primaries as it is not a winner takes all. So, to say that, for example, Huckabee has won Iowa for 40 delegates or that Romney has won Wyoming for 14 delegates is just not correct. As of right now, Romney has won an estimated 40 delegates, Huckabee an estimated delegates, Thompson 5 delegates, McCain 3 delegates, Paul 2 delegates, Giuliani 1 delegate, and Hunter 1 delegate. Based on the information on both these pages, it would appear that Huckabee is the leader with 40 and Romney in 2nd with 14. But that is not correct. Suggestions? Comments? Perhaps on the bottom of the page, we could have a Current Delegates count that shows the awarded and estimated awarded from the primaries/caucuses that have finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcox (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Results for a different view. --Elliskev 15:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate brokering?[edit]

RCP website is showing a shift in delegates away from Romney & McCain and towards Huckabee. Is there brokering going on among delegates? It looks like the current result should be Romney 48, Huckabee 32, McCain 13 and Thompson 3. B (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to wildly differing methods for guessing how delegates are divided in Iowa. --Elliskev 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is correct Elliskev because (with the exception of "unpledged" delegates) RCP and CNN numbers were agreeing. Now RCP has actually shifted delegates from what it orginally had. McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and Romney have all lost delegates to Huckabee in RCP from what RCP was reporting previously. B (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't RCP's pledged numbers match MSNBC's? I thought RCP just took stuff that's already out there, like we do. --Elliskev 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am wrong and it is simply different methodology between RCP and CNN. I think http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml is probably a more accurate picture of what is going on with the delegates and when they are actually chosen. B (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Papers explains very well how it works. It doesn't provide a better way to guess how many delegates each candidate will end up with. One guess is as good as any other (within reason). I think it's best if we just stick with one guess-source. --Elliskev 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview table[edit]

I'm not going to interfere with an otherwise great table, but could a row in the overview table be added totaling the "earned" pledged delegates from the primaries/caucuses? It's a bit confusing without that breakdown. Perhaps showing a logical flow along the lines of:

  • Total delegates = Superdelegates + Pledged Delegates
  • Pledged Delegates = Iowa + Wyoming + New Hampshire + ...

Also, if the emphasis is on adding up delegates, shouldn't the delegate totals be bigger than the percentages in each state?

Closer to the end of the primary season, the totals should also be repeated at the bottom. Just some thoughts... if someone who can do all of this without messing up the table is up to the task. Tim P (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added a "Pledged delegates" row (as I did for the Democratic page, too). If people don't like it, someone can change it. TSN (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! This is exactly what I was hoping for, I just didn't know the right way to do it. I love it! Thanks! Michaelcox (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could some one add Alan Keyes to the table, I'll probably screw it up if I try to edit it. – Zntrip 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it, but will it really add anything? Is he on any ballots? --Elliskev 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Elliskev 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the "Estimated Total Delegate" row total 2390 delegates if there are ony 2380 delegates? Qeorqe (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa results[edit]

The information on this page comes from CNN's results page. However, MSNBC claims that the Iowa results are very different. They have the exact same numbers of votes listed, but they show Huckabee with 30 delegates, Romney with the other 7, and nobody else with any at all. Does anyone know why this is? Is there some uncertainty about how Iowa will end up assigning its delegates? And, if so, should these conflicting data be represented in the chart somehow? TSN (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to understand it, but Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008#January 2008 procedure seems to indicate that the delegate counts as reported by the media are educated guesses. --Elliskev 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems. Why, then, I wonder, does it seem that CNN's methodology is the one that has been accepted here? If both methods are equally theoretical, shouldn't the article either give both versions of the results or simply state that the true figures remain unknown? -TSN (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I figure one guess is as good as another. A footnote would probably be in order. --Elliskev 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one seems to have objected, I went ahead and added MSNBC's delegate estimates alongside CNN's. I tried sourcing the individual numbers, but that made things way too messy. Hopefully, the dual notes next to the headers at the top left of the table will be enough. -TSN (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain Michigan but the difference in Iowa can be explained by whether they apportion delegates based on a proportional scheme that mandates a candidate get at least 15% of the total votes versus a proportional scheme where there is NO mandate of 15% to get any candidates. If there is NO mandate of 15% to get any delegates then the MSNBC estimates are more on point but if there IS a 15% minimum required then the CNN numbers are right because you divide the delegates as if only those candidates who get 15% or more of the state vote count and divide the delegates proportionally among those candidates. Hope this helps......I think the CNN way is right from what I understand! (DaveIseminger (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would tend to go with CNN on the delegate counts. As to Michigan, CNN apprently hasn't called two of Michigan's 30 delegates yet. Since the district portion is based on congressional district lines and the raw data comes out summarized by county (and detailed by precients) it's not suprizing they still haven't re tabulated all of it by congressional district yet in counties split between multiple congressional districts. It is though much further along that it was this morning when they were only projecting 21 of the 30 delegates. On the Republican side, I have no idea or not a mandate of 15% applies in Michigan for the proportial statewide&bonus delegates. It's the Democrats who assign all delegates proportialy with a 15% minimum. The Republicans leave the allocation rules up to the state parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncnunn (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see TSNs comments from today before now. I reverted the addition of MSNBC counts as confusing the table. See the Main table and alternative answers section below for my earlier comments on this. --Elliskev 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map is a mess and is no accurate. First can someone fix up how it looks and make the names look organized. DC is not shown. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands are NOT in the Republican Primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.162.16 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the missing DC. However all of those US territories are invited to (and attend!)the Republican National Convention. Puerto Rico has control over 23 delegates, Guam has 9, American Samoa has 9, the US Virgin Islands have 9, the Northern Mariana Islands have 9 and DC has 19. Chipmunker (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So should I remove Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands since the map only serves to show which candidate won the most delegates in that territory? I'll add D.C. CoolKid1993 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should definitly leave them. DC should be added as well as Northern Mariana Islands. – Zntrip 05:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and found that only the Republicans have a caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands ([1]). So in a nutshell, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands should be on both maps. In addition, the Northern Mariana Islands should be on the Republican map only. And Democrats Abroad should be on the Democratic map only. – Zntrip 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary Season: 2008 Republican Calendar

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html

The Republican Party of Puerto Rico Presidential Primary information:

http://www.republicansource.com/states/puertorico.htm

http://www.goppr.org/index.php.en

The process to select the next President of the United States is well underway. There are eight formidable republican candidates each positioned to defeat their Democratic opponent. In this process there are three main events; The First event is the primary process where each state selects their candidate (Or number of delegates to each). Puerto Rico will have their primary on Sunday, February 24, 2008. The second event is the National Republican Convention which will be held in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN from September 1 to the 4th, 2008. In this convention the Republican Party will nominate their candidate to the General Elections. The third event is the General Election which will be held on November 5, 2008 and in which the new President will be elected.

Puerto Rico Total Delegates:

23 Total Delegates: 23 At Large Format: Primary Delegates bound for 1 ballot Winner-take-all Primary: TBD Delegates are elected in the primary, and are bound to endorse the presidential candidate which they are certified as supporting. Delegates are not bound by the presidential preference primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.republicansource.com/primaries.htm

For Jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:

10 At-Large delegates from each state, that is, 5 at-large delegates for each U.S. Senator. 3 District delegates for each U.S. Representative. For Jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:

6 at-large delegates from American Samoa. 16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia. 6 at-large delegates from Guam. 6 at-large delegates from Northern Mariana Islands 20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico. 6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands. For all Jurisdictions - 3 party leaders: the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the state Republican Party.

At-large (AL): At-large. At-larges delegates consist of all delegates elected to the national convention except for congressional district delegates. At-large delegates also include the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state chairman from each state party and American Samoa , the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See Republican Party Rule 13(a)(2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further map issues[edit]

It is misleading to color a state with a particular candidate color. Candidates generally do not "win." They obtain delegates to the national convention, and so far, none are "winner take all", and none can be "winner take all" because of delegates from each state that are not appointed through the caucus or primary process. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That these elections aren't winner take all has also been my concern when it comes to how the results are reported. Perhaps the map could color each state in a way that reflects the number of estimated delegates for each candidate? Terjen (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It actually doesn't bother me that much that the map only shows the winners. It would make it way to complicated to show 2nd and 3rd place in a useful manner on the map. One request I do have, though, is that the colors for the candidates be changed to match the colors in the wonderful graphs found in the Opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008 article. It's confusing to switch between that article and this one. In general, this is a great article and I thank you all for doing such a great job disseminating this information to average joes like myself. (Skotywa (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The map should visualize what is relevant in this election, which is the number of delegates awarded to each candidate. In some cases, the same number of delegates may be awarded to the second place as to the "winner" of the popular vote, like happened to Clinton (39%) and Obama (36%) in New hampshire. The two really tied in the relevant metrics as both got 9 delegates, and the map should have reflected this. Terjen (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can Someone Take Duncan Hunter's name out of the map, he dropped out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.162.16 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred can also be taken out now since he dropped out without winning a state. Now if Huckabee, McCain, or Romney drops out at a later date they should stay in because they've each won at least one state. Jon (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section layout[edit]

What is the second level sorting order? I can not figure it out? I suggest the second level be resorted by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.136 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wdfarmer and I have been having a discussion regarding linking to primary and caucus articles. If you look at the page now, you will see that for the Iowa caucuses the heading is “Iowa caucuses” with “caucuses” linking to “Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008”. Directly below appears {{details}}, which says For more details on this topic, see Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008.

We both agree that the current layout is awkward. However, Wdfarmer prefers using {{details}} as he believes it explicitly and clearly indicates that another article exists and removing the link in the heading to “Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008”. I prefer simply having the link in the header, as I think it too is clearly indicated, and removing {{details}}. We are interested in anyone’s opinions. The conclusion to this discussion should parallel that on Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries so that both articles have the same layout. Please post all comments on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries so that the discussion is all on one talk page. – Zntrip 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the {{details}} have since been gradually edited to {{main}}, which is still fine with me. For consistency, I've added twelve more {{main}}s to the Republican sections through February 5, 2008: those sections now all have both links in the header and a {{main}}.
There hasn't been any comment regarding our discussion, pro or con, on this side or the Democratic side. Personally, I'd like to clean things up and remove the flags and links from the section headers on both articles, in conformance to MOS as I argued in Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries#Section layout. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. At 06:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC), I removed the flags and links from the section headers on this article, and updated the internal links to match those headers. Wdfarmer (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do list[edit]

I’ve made this section because a lot still needs to be done on this page. If you have more to add here, please do so.

  1. Check caucus and primary dates and make sure that the number of national delegates being chosen is correct. I suggest this link.
  2. Main articles for all the upcoming primaries and caucuses still need to be made.
  3. The full results for the New Hampshire primary still needs to be added. This link has all the votes. If you want to do this, keep in mind that the table goes by number of votes, not alphabetically (unless multiple candidates have the same number of votes). Look at this link for first names. Do not add the blue names (those are Republican ballots in which people wrote in Democratic candidates’ names), add those as all together at the bottom of the table as “write-in candidates”. Don’t forget that the percentages should be to two decimal places.
  4. Don’t forget to cite all sources, use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. – Zntrip 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour coding[edit]

The legend at the bottom of the big chart says that the colours are based on "delegates earned" but the chart itself has been changed to reflect vote totals (I.e. McCain isn't coloured as tied for third in Iowa). The same is also true at the corresponding Democratic page. We should probably have consistency is this matter. I'd prefer basing colours, if we have them at all, on the delegate counts rather than vote totals but whatever decision is made should be consistent and enforced. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the key is claiming that the colors are based on the delegates. I think the small "(delegates earned)" is meant to indicate that the small number in parentheses is the number of delegates earned. However, I think I would agree with basing the colors on the delegates rather than the popular vote, since—undemocratic as it is—the delegates are the ones who elect the nominee. -TSN (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed they should be colored by delegate counts. So shade McCain in for 3rd in Iowa here and then check the Democratic side. Jon (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get rid of second place colors? Just the dark lue for winners?--154.20.78.130 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the benefit? --Elliskev 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm colorblind and I cannot distinguish the "3rd place" background from the white background and the "Candidate has withdrawn" is nearly as bad. Could we increase the contrast a bit? --4A6179 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the top row of the delegate box to use a pink background (bgcolor="#FFE8E8") shading the name of candidates who have dropped out. 66.98.99.155 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. -Kallahan (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Republican Primary Results.png[edit]

Image:Republican Primary Results.png is extremely misleading. State victories are not winner take all. This map implies a winner take all result. Is the map really necessary if it is so misleading? Kingturtle (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should be proprtionaly striped to the number of delegates each of them received out of those possible. (At least for the top 2 since it may become too messy if there's too many stripes.) In any case though some of the Republican primaries though are winner take all such as Florida. Jon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even in Florida, there are non-elected delegates, so no state can have all delegates determined by the primary -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since the RNC penalized Florida (among other states), their 57 delegates ARE actually winner-take-all since the penalty takes away the non-elected delgates. As to whether the rest of the map is misleading, there's no real way to show delegate breakdown in a map image. I personally have no problem with the map, so long as the caption indicates that it does not reflect an accurate distribution of the actual delegates. The media punditry places emphasis on who "wins" a state, so it seems relevant to the page. 149.166.137.218 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needed to win?[edit]

How many total delegates are needed to clinch the final victory? for the dems the number is 2,025. Kingturtle (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What happens to the delegates that are pledge to a canidate that withdrawns? i.e. If Fred Thompson withdraws where will his 8 delegates go? Is this up to the canidate or the delegate? ----

The candidate will usually, but won't necessarily, ask his pledged delegates to vote for another candidate. The 1976 Republican convention gives an example of that. Ronald Reagan had won more delegates than any other candidate in the primaries (but not the required majority) and Gerald Ford won on the first round, when the pledged delegates of others (who had less than either of the two frontrunners) voted for Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadparty (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the main 2008 Republican primary article: "A simple majority of delegate votes (1,191 out of 2,380) is required to become the party's nominee". One cautionary note, I don't know weather or not those two numbers reflect the half-delegation penalty for NH, MI, and FL. As to delegates of a droped out candidate, they offically become uncommited. They often (but not always) follow the lead of the former candidate if he makes an endorsement. Jon (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more note though, Iowa's & Nevada's national delegates weren't actually selected yet; and instead were only officaly sending delegates pledged to candidates to a higher level conventions where their national delegates would be selected. So candidates that withdraw before then will probably not receive the delegates they were previously projected to take from those states. Jon (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main table and alternative answers[edit]

The main table looks awful at the moment - writing "x or y" in each box where the figures are massively different is bad enough, but the totals then don't make sense. How can Romney's figures of (12) or (7), 8, 4 and (12) or (23) add up to "36 or 42"? Surely the total could be anywhere between 31 and 47, far enough apart that the number becomes reasonably useless...212.124.225.66 (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the "X or Y" notation in the table so I came here to see if it is being discussed. After reading this page I still don't get it. Is it the range (minimum to maximum) of delegates the candidate might have won? If so, how about "X - Y" with an explanation somewhere nearby? 70.162.156.229 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to choose a single source for the pledged delegate count. The table started with CNN as that source. In the interest of the table not looking like crap, I'm removing the "or" numbers and sticking with CNN numbers. --Elliskev 13:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that solution. In the interest of informing those who don't follow the topic that closely (isn't that what an encyclopedia is for?) it seems a prominent notice that estimates vary and these are the CNN estimates would be appropriate. 70.162.156.229 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The disclaimer is at the top of the chart. I'm sure the wording can be improved. --Elliskev 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better now... I know that it's not ideal to take one set of results as gospel, but as more states declare, it's going to become impossible to try to quote alternative figures in every pane of the entire table!217.44.122.180 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate counts in table[edit]

I've changed it back a couple of times now... It just doesn't make sense to add the original delegate count for states that are being stripped of delegates. There's no explanation given as to why there are two numbers. Secondly, the original count is irrelevant to this table. Thirdly, the state name is a link to an article where this can be handled much better. --Elliskev 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The main article is a better location for delegate stripping. Jon (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can some fix the Michigan Primary results row, its messed up.

Template:2008Repprimaries[edit]

I created:

I don't want to start putting it onto articles yet, because it's 90% red links. But once the articles begin to be created, I think it will be quite handy.

Also, if you have time, can someone make sure I got all the links correct (like which ones are primaries and which ones are caucuses)? Kingturtle (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyes[edit]

As it's been decided in the discussion on the main page not to include Alan Keyes as a candidate, I think we should be internally consistent and not have a column for him in the summary for this page. William Quill (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! He is not a national candidate! There are no results for him in Iowa, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. He is a candidate like Cox, Cort and Wuensche. 18:42, 23 January 2008 (CET)

Keyes is a national candidate (20+ states), but I would argue for deleting him on the grounds of having no delegates. If he stays at 0 on the 5th, let's pull him. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait to see what happens here. – Zntrip 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming[edit]

I changed the little Wyoming numbers, which reflect what the delegates at stake would be if the RNC doesn't cut the delegation. CNN, and other sources I've seen, assume that the 12 selected plus two more chosen at the state convention will be seated. The state party selection process, however, is for 12 delegates from the county conventions and 16 from the state convention.[2] How the RNC will determin who is seated (assuming that half the delegation are in fact denied votes at the convention) is unclear, but the table shouldn't imply that they would have selected 24 and then 4 which is not correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on CNN numbers for Wyoming and the other states, it appears they are assuming that the state parties decide who get striped and they are assuming Wyoming is going to entirely apply the strip to the later primary. This looks like their way of getting back at the RNC for the strip since the reason for the strip was that the delegates at the convention were offically commited that day (unlike Iowa & Nevada) who don't ratify their national delegations until later. On the other states being striped, it appears CNN is assuming the state parties will strip half of each candidate's assigned delegates. Personaly I think the affected states will come up with some other rule for appling the stripping that doesn't result in some congressional districts for the state having more delegates than others. (Normally 3 delegates are assigned per congressional district). But that would be original research and besides which there are multiple ways to do this. Jon (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WY specifically said that's their plan. I'm not sure there's any other assumption that can be made on other states until they make a statement to that effect. --Aranae (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two maps?[edit]

Do we really need two maps for this article? Unlike on the Democratic side, all the races have resulted in a single winner for both the popular vote (where reported) and number of delegates. As long as the two maps are identical, I think that we should just use one. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The two maps serve a purpose in the rather confusing delegate vs. popular Democratic side, but not here. --Aranae (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation syntax help needed[edit]

I see that citations which are used more than once can be bunched (for example reference one in this article is used four times, and is listed as 1 a b c d. Can someone point me the a useful help page that explains how to write the syntax to get that done? I've tried to make sense of it by looking at it here, but I think a help page will work better for me. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what you mean. Have one reference like this: <ref name="XYZ">Citaion goes here</ref>. To cite information from this source simply add <ref name="XYZ"/>. – Zntrip 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana caucus January 22?[edit]

Has anyone heard anything about this? According to that, Louisiana has 47 delegates and not 20 like the article currently says. Anyone have any idea of what is actually going on? ~ PaulC/T+ 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Answer: Louisiana holds a caucus to choose 27 of its 47 delegates, on feb 9 they have a primary to choose the remaining 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh10190 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be updated with Louisana results and caucus dates... —Nightstallion 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, acccording to the article dealing with the Louisiana Republican caucus, all 27 (of the ones chosen at the caucus) are chosen WTA only if a candidate received a majority of the vote in them and are otherwise all uncommitted. So it is actually more likely than not that those are all uncommited since this is a multi-candidate race. And also this was only choosing delegates pledged to a candidate to go to a higher level convention and more over an initial preference poll was not done (unlike Iowa & Nevada). All these factors combine for no news story and an unknown result. Jon (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most states have multiple events for choosing state and national delegates. The Louisiana caucus and the Hawaii caucus] only choose local delegates for the state conventions. I propose we just add the events in which national delegates are chosen and remove the Louisiana caucus. – Zntrip 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that remove Iowa (whose delegates aren't actually decided until June 14)? See: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-R.phtml#0614  ~ PaulC/T+ 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Iowa convention utilizes the results from the caucus is selecting delegates. – Zntrip 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Louisiana convention is made up of delegates that were selected during the caucus yesterday. It looks like there may even be results released from the Louisiana GOP. As long as we can find reliable sources, I don't think the Louisiana caucuses should be removed. ~ PaulC/T+ 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at that page, it seems that the results of the LA caucuses will not be "clear" (read announced) unitl at least Feb. 16 when they have their statewide convention. It seems to me that the chart should be updated to move LA to Feb. 16th since we'll get no clear picture from them until that date. I'll leave it to one of the "article owners" to make the final call though. Thanks again all for working so hard to keep this up to date. (Skotywa (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I realize that there are results, but they don’t seem to have anything to do with national delegates. – Zntrip 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those 21 individuals are part of the delegate pool. They have stated which candidate or what sort of candidate they will support. I don't think they are formally committed to that choice. --Aranae (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'm wrong. It seems that these delegates will be selecting more than half of the delegates later in February. --Aranae (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a distinction between Iowa other than the lack of media coverage. ~ PaulC/T+ 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the biggest differences is the lack of candidate affiliation. The delegates chosen are basicly all uncommitted. – Zntrip 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the state know that McCain "won" then? I know the delegates themselves are uncommitted, but I'm sure they have a preference, and finding a WP:RS that tabulates those preferences would be helpful. The question is whether or not that source exists. Either way, I don't see why the caucus should be kept from the article. ~ PaulC/T+ 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, they are all uncommitted because that's the only way they would avoid losing delegates by going early. Basically they elected X number of very committed McCain supporters as state delegate who are technically allowed to change their minds. I agree that it definitely belongs in the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it lends itself to simple tables, but requires explanation in text form. --Aranae (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to include Louisiana, which I think we shouldn't, are we going to have this: Hawaii Republican caucuses, 2008? – Zntrip 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Counts[edit]

I'm getting extremely confused by the delegate counts for each state. It seems to have changed recentely.

For example: Wyoming: Delegates: 12[4] (of 14,*[›] was 12 of 28)

There is no explanation of what is going on here. Perhaps a paragraph to break down the logic involved here would be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.174.54 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"12" is the number of delegates at stake in that election, "[4]" is just a reference and that number can change based on the number references before it, "of 14" means there are a total of 14 delegates available in this state, "*[›]" is another reference pointing to the note at the bottom of the table, "was 12 of 28" indicates what those numbers would have been had the state not been penalized by the RNC for having too early of an election. I'm not really sure how/where a paragraph with an explanation would be shown. I think the numbers are fairly straightforward, though a bit confusing due to the RNC sanctions. ~ PaulC/T+ 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the numbers are saying, I just don't understand why the delegate count is what it is and who decided this.--138.87.180.205 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each state has their own procedure for allocating national delegates. See the reference for further information on how it is done for each state. ~ PaulC/T+ 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana results[edit]

Everyone has seen the LA results, right? They are currently here. But this is a page that has been changing frequently without an archive that I can find. The text of the press release that's currently at that site can be found at this blog. The results are in order: "Uncommitted Pro-Life, McCain, Paul, Romney, others". The actual votes were for delegates that appear to support one of those candidates or platforms. The vote counts for delegates were posted earlier, but I can no longer find them. That tally does not, however, indicate who each candidate supports. --Aranae (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some sense, McCain "won" the Louisiana caucus. In another sense, their delegates have yet to be chosen. I think this page needs to reflect both of those observations in a context that notes the complexity of the system used and a lack of media interest. The Table needs to say something for the 22 Jan caucuses or else that row should be removed. I favour the latter option. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My worry with calling McCain the victor is that pro-life slate could decide to go for literally anyone (except probably Giuliani) or divide anyway. So even Huckabee could step into this and win it. I think if this information goes into tables or maps at this stage, it should be reflected as uncommitted 1st, McCain 2nd, and Paul 3rd. --Aranae (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier under the LA cacus it was stated that it's WTA but a candidate has to have a majority, otherwise they are are uncommitted. Combined with the ordering of results, that would indicate that "Uncommitted Pro Life" won all those delegates, and McCain, Paul, Romney, and others none. (Not to be confused with Louisana's later primary where other delegates will be selected.) In any case, "Uncommitted Pro Life", is just that; none of those delegates are bound to any candidate. They have apprently though been given instructions (probably non binding) to vote for a pro life candidate. Jon (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Can it then be included on the map in some neutral colour (to indicate that the caucus has taken place but that the "winner" was 'uncommitted')? Can something go in the table? Ideas? Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Louisana should have a netural color for "comitted". And since apprently that slate is larger than than their later primary, it should stay that color even after their primary. And I also agree the table format needs changed to include LAs uncommitted delegates. Jon (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to get some clarity?[edit]

Could some clarity actually be emerging? This is still coming from blogs like this one, but it appears that some numbers will be attributed to these candidates. Right now, prior to finishing sorting the provisional ballot mess, these are the results. Out of 105, 70 are pro-life pro-family uncommited and 30 are McCain. Paul comes in next (number unknown) and Romney fourth (unknown). Of course since it's Louisiana and politics it can't be simple. The 70 and 30 listed above are not mutually exclusive. Many of those 70 uncommitteds ran as McCain supporters at the same time. So his 30 includes several counted amongst that 70. --Aranae (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reputuable sources for articles. I do note though that Louiana is only picking 27 National Delegates from the cacus (another 20 from their later primary) and so if your refering to national delegates, your 105 number is way off. And if I under it correctly, "McCain's count" was the number of McCain backers refusing to sign onto "Pro Life uncommited", "Paul's count" was the number of Paul backers refusing to sign onto "Pro Life uncommited", and so forth. And so a large fraction would actually be a realtive disadvantage. Jon (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105 is the number of delegates going to the state convention where they will decide on 27 or 47 (depending on primary results) national delegates. Admittedly, it is from wandering around sites and not just the blog I posted, but I was under the impression that because they were running on both slates, they counted as delegates for both slates. I was also under the impression that there are more than 5 being split between Paul and Romney. But these are all from really bad sources. There are no good sources on this topic. --Aranae (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Voting Machine Verifiability[edit]

-- Just posted an edit to the South Carolina results without reading the rules on editing. Apologies. Without making a similar change again, do you think it should be mentioned that the new electronic voting machine integrity should be called into question as there are several reports from internet news sites saying that there were some quite notable problems with these machines. Either that or should there be a note by the primaries which use those machines? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.100.76 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about voting discrepancies or irregularities should not go on this page, as its purpose is to simple have results. They should, however, be mentioned, and sourced, on the main page for the primary. – Zntrip 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... for the useful hint. After having my comment reverted --- no problems with that, now I have read the rules, it was appropriate... the reason being vandalism was a bit over zealous. However the rules about posting content is that they should be verifiable. The results from e-voting machines are not verifiable. No paper trail exists. Therefore these results should have a note on this page as they can not be considered 'results' as they are non-verifiable despite them being the norm as reported by the 'mainstream media'. Why could the electronic voting machines not print a receipt which then had to be put in a ballot box by the voter after checking, which would then give the advantage of a quick initial count, plus the opportunity to manually verify the results and any financial incentives for evoting machines would be still there. May I propose to have a footnote by all primaries using electronic voting machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.94.69 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can source the information, from a newspaper or something, put something on the articles. – Zntrip 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Electronic Voting Risk Definition Level.
High The states were given that ranking for using electronic voting machines that do not produce an independent, voter-verifiable paper record that could be used in the case of a recount or audit.

Mid In addition, the report found 17 states to be at "medium" risk for having election results affected by voting machine failure. This classification was given to states that use voting systems that deploy paper ballots or produce a voter-verifiable paper record of each voter's vote, but do not require audits.

Low The report found six states to be at "low" risk for a voting meltdown because those states use voting systems that deploy paper ballots or produce voter verifiable paper records, as well as require audits.

State Risk Level Primary Dates
South Carolina HIGH 26-Jan 19-Jan
Florida HIGH 29-Jan 29-Jan
Arkansas HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
Delaware HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
Georgia HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
New Jersey HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
New York HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
Tennessee HIGH 5-Feb 5-Feb
Louisiana HIGH 9-Feb 9-Feb
District of Columbia HIGH 12-Feb 12-Feb
Maryland HIGH 12-Feb 12-Feb
Virginia HIGH 12-Feb 12-Feb
Texas HIGH 4-Mar 4-Mar
Mississippi HIGH 11-Mar 11-Mar
Pennsylvania HIGH 22-Apr 22-Apr
Indiana HIGH 6-May 6-May
Kentucky HIGH 20-May 20-May
Hampshire MID 8-Jan 8-Jan
Michigan MID 15-Jan 15-Jan
Alabama MID 5-Feb 5-Feb
Arizona MID 5-Feb 5-Feb
Massachusetts MID 5-Feb 5-Feb
Utah MID 5-Feb 5-Feb
Oklahoma MID 5-Feb 5-Feb
Wisconsin MID 19-Feb 19-Feb
Ohio MID 4-Mar 4-Mar
Vermont MID 4-Mar 4-Mar
Rhode Island MID 4-Mar 4-Mar
Oregon MID 20-May 20-May
South Dakota MID 3-Jun 3-Jun
Montana MID 3-Jun Caucus 5-Feb
Idaho MID Caucus 5-Feb 27-May
New Mexico MID Caucus 5-Feb 3-Jun
Nebraska MID Caucus 9-Feb 13-May
California LOW 5-Feb 5-Feb
Connecticut LOW 5-Feb 5-Feb
Illinois LOW 5-Feb 5-Feb
Missouri LOW 5-Feb 5-Feb
North Carolina LOW 6-May 6-May
West Virginia LOW 13-May 13-May

Electronic Voting Risk Source: [3]

Endorsed delegates?[edit]

Recently Duncan Hunter, who had one pledged delegate, endorsed Mike Huckabee. I'm wondering if a row should be added to the table for endorsed delegates? For example, under Huckabee, there would be "1 (from Hunter)" or something to that effect. However, I'm hesitant as the delegates aren't obliged to obey the candidate once they drop out (Hunter never instructed the delegate to vote for Huckabee).65.31.80.94 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a major site like CNN starts covering it, it should not be inculded because that would come under original research. In addition, even if Hunter did call up the delegate and ask him to vote Huckabee, the delegate doesn't have too. Jon (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 5[edit]

As we all know, there are about 20 different races occurring on February 5th. We are going to have our resources here stretched thin. We should prepare ourselves so that no race slips through the cracks that night. Place your name under the race(s) you intend to help with on February 5th. Certainly pick the races you are most interested it. I hope we can have at least two editors for each race. As we draw closer to February 5th we will be able to see where we are thin, and where we might need help. Kingturtle (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned that we only have five primaries covered. I encourage everyone to sign up and help. It's ok if we have more than one per primary, but it would be especially helpful if we could get at least one per primary. Kingturtle (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come one, come all. Don't forget that we need your help on Super Tuesday. Please sign up and help us out! Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be at my computer for most of the night on Super Tuesday. Any races that are still left, I will be happy to keep updated. Please send me confirmation to, and let me know what races are left, so I can watch them carefully. America69 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to all the volunteers. This is great! How about a few more volunteers for the states that have no volunteers? Kingturtle (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those curious, this article does a pretty good job of summing up when the first results will be coming out by location. Time is in EST. Joshdboz (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers for February 5[edit]

Alabama[edit]

Alaska[edit]

Arizona[edit]

California[edit]

Colorado[edit]

Connecticut[edit]

Delaware[edit]

Georgia[edit]

Illinois[edit]

Massachusetts[edit]

Minnesota[edit]

Missouri[edit]

Montana[edit]

New Jersey[edit]

New York[edit]

North Dakota[edit]

Oklahoma[edit]

Tennessee[edit]

Utah[edit]

West Virginia[edit]

Cartogram delegate map[edit]

I love the new cartogram delegate maps on this and the Democrat page. However, isn't there an error in this map with respect to McCain's delegates from South Caroline? Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, yellow is Romney and that should be green for Mccain..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.190.54 (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of “uncommitted” column on main chart[edit]

Could someone expand the “uncommitted” column on main chart so that it’s like the one on the Democratic results page? – Zntrip 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly messy IMHO[edit]

Sorry to say that this appears one of the messiest articles I've seen. A large problem is overpresentation leading to redundancy (e.g., every state and territory flag twice?!). The solution would appear to be (encyclopedic) rearrangement for better understanding. Since this seems heavily edited, I am announcing my intent to clean up here first, and will go slowly a chunk at a time. I think many formatting and organization changes are necessary before this is both presentable and usable for the rest of the season and beyond. Off the top of my head, the stripping of candidates should precede the table as a pretty-well done deal rather than be constantly repeated throughout; the long columns of 0-delegate cells in winner-take-all states are unnecessary in the state tables, when users can rely on the main table for that; abbreviations and other assumptions that people have been properly led in to the content can be made use of. At the same time, there are content problems also; e.g., we need to have a better answer to delegate counting than just "CNN said so", due to reliability and verifiability. But I'll go ahead with some bold changes on and off, and see what we can build it to. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to report that I will be unable to help with this article significantly, and am taking it off my watchlist. It appears to me that the counting of delegates itself, which one would expect to be straightforward, will be such a messy operation in-process, full of conflicting POVs, that it will be poor use of time to contribute significantly. In some of the other election articles, general standards are accepted and disputes are relatively easy to resolve, but I do not see consensus standards developing here other than taking media's word for their totals. Maybe next time. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maine[edit]

The Maine delegate result is reported here as being semi-proportional, but on the article page for Maine and in the media, the result is reported as winner-takes-all, so Romney getting all the delegates. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive, but I think "semi-proportional" means that if the candidate gets a majority of the vote, it's WTA and otherwise proportional. In which case, because Romney got 52% of the vote there, he got all the delegates. Jon (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% mistaken. Ron Paul won 35% of the state delegates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starks (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Republican Caucus to be followed by regular primary on Tuesday, August 5th?[edit]

Do Kansas Republicans have both a caucus and primary? The bottom of this GOP FAQ seems ambiguous. --Thomas B♘talk 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri[edit]

Why is there already a table of election results for here in Missouri? The polls don't close here until 7 PM local (US Central Standard Time), which as of this moment is just under 6 1/2 hours. Jon (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Paper?[edit]

Why is Green Paper listed instead of CNN in several (all?) rows in this table. It used to be exclusively using CNN. Jon (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the individual references were never from CNN. They are there to source the individual delegate numbers for each contest. CNN did not have these numbers on their individual state pages. ~ PaulT+/C 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably way back in the history log by now, but there used to be a line at the top of the table saying something to the effect that all results in this table are from CNN. Jon (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is exactly what I meant by specifying individual references. The actual result numbers are still pulled from CNN as far as I can tell. ~ PaulT+/C 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 5 map corrections[edit]

McCain won Deleware not Huckabee.....should be green not blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.153 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WV Caucus Huckabee-Paul Deal[edit]

Information regarding a Huckabee-Paul deal for support in this caucus has been removed from the article. I have restored it. The information is of an encyclopedic nature, is attested to in at least two journalistic sources and is extremely important to understanding the delegate totals of Paul and Huckabee in the West Virginia caucus. It is also an intereting political deal in an of itself. I believe this informaiton is highly appropriate on this page and takes up little space. Since this is clearly highly relevant and appropriate information I would ask those responsible for delelting it to refrain from doing so wihtout a justification for the deletion. I would also point out that the deletion was labled a "minor edit," which it clearly is not. Caelarch (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I would agree with the removal of the Huckabee-Paul deal and disagree with Caelarch. I would however agree with Caelarch that it shouldn't have been marked as a "minor edit". Caelarch, perhaps you could respond by listing your sources in the discussion? Thanks Jon (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are cited in the article. They are reason.com, boston.com and msnbc.com. The specific websites appear in the appropriate section of the article. I agree that the deal is not official, and I don't think there is any problem making that more clear in the article. But to leave it out completely when it is clearly attested to in several sources seems misleading to me. Caelarch (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are Paul's 3 delegates from this deal? Please restore them. 75.21.114.3 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is not official. It is a private deal. Delegates earmarked by candidates may play out during the convention, but they will not show up in the official tallies. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Mariana Islands and Republicans Abroad[edit]

When are the Northern Mariana Islands election and does Republicans Abroad have an election and when? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans Abroad do not elect delegates unlike Democrats Abroad. Treznor (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the Northern Mariana Islands? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date has not been determined. – Zntrip 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 23, 2008 - GOP Republican Caucus in Northern Mariana Islands - http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=5723&format=html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Seablade February 7 2008[reply]

Quick Question[edit]

Quick Question: How do Giuliani and Thompson have more pledged delegates than total delegates. I know that they have dropped out, but so has edwards and the table for him show edwards having some total delegates.

Sounds like someone edited the total delegates but not the pledged delegates. In any case, in states where that delegate selection was final (most primary states), those delegates are now effectively uncommited. But in states where it was not (most cacus states), at the level where it does become final chances are someone else will actually get the delegates but changing the number will have to wait until the actual conventions. Jon (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two map errors[edit]

Two map errors:

Dunklin County, Missouri voted for Huckabee, not McCain.

The exterme western Oconee County, South Carolina "vote color" is missing; this county voted for McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.217.233 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Kansas City itself voted for McCain. The Missouri Secretary of State graph seperated it from the rest of the county in which it's located which voted for Romney. Jon (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not determined yet != Uncommitted[edit]

While most of the numbers on the Super Tuesday states agree (or at the very least are very close) to CNN; this table is calling a lot of delegates for "Uncommited" that CNN is not calling at all. The overall state numbers in most of these cases have "uncommited" at such a low percent it's highly unlikely "uncommited" won a single delegate in them. Jon (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map legend glitches[edit]

The legend reads in part "* Candidate has ended/suspended there campaign."

First, it shouldn't be "there campaign," it should be "their campaign."

And second, it shouldn't be "their campaign" either. Please change it to "his campaign," and we can fix two errors at once.

76.31.9.18 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California[edit]

California Republican primary, 2008, the big table in this article and the little table under the California sub-heading all show different results for the number of delegates (either 3, 6 or 12 for Romney). What's the right answer? Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big table on this article appears to gets updated more frequently than the others, so 12 is probably currently the right number. (This same table has 3 delegates in the "uncommitted" column that are most likely actually not determined yet.) Jon (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables Headings[edit]

The current tables headings seem to be misaligned.... Ron Paul with 700+ delegates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.190.59 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romney[edit]

Now that Romney endorsed McCain, how should this page be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.91.234 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romney's endorsement has no effect on the delegates. Depending on state party regulations, they are either bound to him until after the first vote at the RNC or he can allow them to go to the convention and vote their conscience. The choice would still be up to the individual delegate and wouldn't be something that could be added to the table at this point in time. ~ PaulT+/C 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Romney did annouce he was releasing the delegates at the same time as the endorsement. But this article should not be changed because of the annoucement. It is however extremely likely that because of the release the various state conventions will send less national delegates for Romney than the numbers currently state, but we have to wait for those conventions to change the numbers. (Personally I strongly suspect what's really going to happen is that in the cacuses Romney won, the national McCain delegates will be largely consist of those who backed Romney on cacus night.) Jon (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Alan Keyes[edit]

Anybody think now's the time to excise his entry from this page? Contrary to what the page currently states, Keyes has hardly run a national campaign, or even much of a limited on for that matter. --Kallahan (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, he was never listed by CNN or CBS on the Republican side. Jon (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I added him originally upon request (see earlier section). I've removed him, now. --Elliskev 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Work=Minnesota?[edit]

On the map, it shows MI instead of NY. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sorry, I didn't catch that before I uploaded it.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map file[edit]

From WP:IUP: Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Republican GOP Primary Results.png is a better-looking image. The smaller, gray font is more friendly on the eyes and leaves the image less cluttered. And the state abbreviations aren't the primary information being conveyed, here, anyway. Is there any way you could use a similar font face, size, and color in the .svg file? That might stop people from reverting back to the .png file. 128.187.0.164 (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, the state abbreviations are primary information, especially in the boxes that aren't linked to areas on the map. I'm going to lighten the colors, though, because now that I'm on a different monitor, it looks pretty dark.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The state names are much easier to read in the SVG version since they are a larger font. MeekMark (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superdelagates?[edit]

Why are there superdelagates listed in the table? Republicans don't have superdelagates as far as I know. 71.57.48.20 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they definitely do. They don't have anywhere near as many as the Democrats, and due to the "winner takes all" nature of so many of their primaries, the Superdelegates are unlikely to have a say even in a very close election, but they definitely have superdelegates.86.132.186.249 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope discussion on Democratic page[edit]

There is a significant and comprehensive discussion on the scope of both the Republican and Democratic results pages going on the Democratic talk page: Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results. Please contribute to this discussion as it will have ramifications for the formatting of this page as well. ~ PaulT+/C 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mistakes[edit]

Alan Keyes = 890, Ron Paul = 274? 79.7.56.164 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee withdraws, need help with table[edit]

I don't have the time to move Huckabee to the "withdrawn" part of the table at the moment. Can someone familiar with table-editing do that? Thanks. I've already marked him as withdrawn in one place in the text. Please fix up anything I missed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think it's particularly realvent at this point who has withdrawn and who hasn't in the colum order now that McCain has cliched the nomination. I would sugest instead reordering them left to right by descending number of delegates. (Which would result in the first three columns being McCain, Romney, Huckabee). Jon (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia contradiction[edit]

The county map shows John McCain winning every county in West Virginia, but the state map shows Mike Huckabee winning West Virginia. Crd721 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia had both a primary and a caucus. The caucus came first and Huckabee won it handily. The primary came later and was won by McCain. Since Huckabee won more delegates total from West Virginia he won the state in spite of McCain's win the the primary of every county there. This is all explained in the text. --Aranae (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the graph showing the Super Tuesday and the Open Primaries where Romney would have won?[edit]

I read this years ago and came back to look for it and can not find it anyplace? Thank you

--OxAO (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved: as this was a well-attended RfC, if any more come up, just pop them in WP:RMT. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– These two seem to have been forgotten in the flurry of election articles moves some time back, possibly because there is a redirect in the way (for the first one). HandsomeFella (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per the lengthy RfC on this naming convention. Anyone opposing would have to have a substantial reason why to ignore that RfC result. --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Apologies for missing these when I compiled the move list after the RfC. Number 57 14:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1198628554"