Talk:2012 United States presidential election in Missouri

Results for St. Louis county

The reference given in the caucus results table has only data on Chesterfield (20 delegates), not on the entire County (300+) delegates. Declaring Santorum the winner in St. Louis county based on only this may be a bit of an exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaLeBu (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Using results I've collected for 19 of the 28 townships in St. Louis County, Santorum still leads, 106-89 over Romney with Paul at 25 delegates. [1] Rarohla (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please supply the references if you can. I would not be shy about cramming five or ten or twenty references into the "sources" box for St. Louis County in the table. I think the references are the more important than the actual count, because they let people see the details of the caucuses.CountMacula (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah that was my mistake. Such a confusing and opaque system.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Evolution of the tables and of the article

We should start thinking about what the article should look like after the district conventions and the state party convention. It looks hopeless to get refs to articles describing every caucus or to know who got the most delegates in each county, but certainly there is value in keeping all the refs we can find to anecdotes on the events of the caucuses.CountMacula (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep it for now. Well play it by ear until the districts and state.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the incompleteness of the "Caucus results by county" table, I am inclined to say that the lines that lack valid "Winner" and "source" entries should be deleted. The other lines (there are about 40) should be kept, as they give access to local process and result. I think because of their incompleteness, we should consider deleting the "Election results by county" map and the "Caucus results by number of counties won" table.CountMacula (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

St. Charles County Re-Caucus Results

Two days after the results are in, it seems to be impossible to write them into the article. I just tried to do so, only to discover, that this was done and undone in the meantime. What's happening here? 2.201.168.80 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it was done again. Mysterious.2.201.168.80 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Uncommitted'?

I don't know what is meant by 'uncommitted' regarding delegates. As I understand it, no delegate had to pledge to vote a certain way. Does it just mean 'unknown' or that no one on the slate in question expressed a preference, or even that the delegate preferences reflected the primary results proportionally? The article needs a sentence or two explaining what 'uncommitted' means.CountMacula (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've removed this section because it is starting to be a WP:COATRACK issue since it's starting to have no relevance to the election itself since it already has passed and the results have already been announced. I do not see how this section improves the article nor does it have any bearing in the future. The trial for example has nothing to do with the election itself although it occurred during the election. Please discuss here first explaining why you think it would improve on the article itself. ViriiK (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Invoking WP:COATRACK is an accusation of bias. The result of the trials indicates whether parliamentary process at the caucus was violated. Further, keeping the account of the primary "election" while deleting nearly all information on the caucuses indicates a misunderstanding of and disrespect for the process of choosing delegates to the national convention. Focusing on the primary "election" would leave the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. The Missouri Republican Party's contribution to choosing a national candidate is after all the importance of the article in the first place. This article is and ought to be mainly about the caucuses and conventions and the processes involved, not the primary "election". So anything that may have affected the outcome of the caucuses is topical and important.CountMacula (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

COATRACK is acceptable in this case. The reason for this is because the delegates are already assigned and finalized. I do not see why you need to expand on side subjects such as a trial which has zero bearing on the main article. Also WP:TOPIC would apply here since you are deviating from the point. I've argued other COATRACK issues and this qualifies. You need to stay on topic.

Questions for you

Is the primary & caucus over?

Is the result posted?

That's all there needs to be said on this. There are 50 other pages and none are as expansive as this page. ViriiK (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1) People reading the Coatrack essay can see that any concept of coatrack is poorly defined there. It is an essay written by a lot of people. I am trying to be gentle.

2) You repeating that the present article matches coatrack does not make it so.

3) If coatrack has any exact definition, Bias is an essential feature of it. You have not shown bias.

4) I see nothing in the WP:COATRACK ESSAY involving a time element, so it seems bizarre to claim that "the delegates are already assigned and finalized" implies coatrack. Further, Wikipedia documents history.

5) Extending your reasoning that the caucus controversies should be ignored since "the delegates are already assigned and finalized": all the caucus and primary articles themselves should be deleted as soon as the presidential candidate is nominated. You would just ask: "Has the candidate been nominated? Is the result posted?" You can see how ridiculous that is.

6) I have already indicated the relevance of the Controversies section, including the relevance of the trial. If you don't understand the concepts behind the indicated relevance, please ask for help.

7) All the external articles referred to in the Controversies section, including numerous articles in the mainstream press (stltoday.com, etc), refer to the caucuses. That includes the articles about the trial. The authors of the external articles, and their readers, relate the articles to the caucuses. Please try to find one referenced work that does not contain the word 'caucus' or a photo taken at a caucus. So you can see that it is against common sense to invoke WP:TOPIC here.

8) At the top of the WP:COATRACK ESSAY, in the box, it is stated: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies."

9) WP:TOPIC is also merely part of an ESSAY and not a Wikipedia policy.

CountMacula (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposed

I propose merging Controversies at the 2012 St. Charles County, Missouri Republican caucus into this article. The "controversies" article is an unnecessary content fork.—GoldRingChip 13:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that article was created as an experiment and is out of date and IMO should be deleted. I don't expect there will be objections.CountMacula (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you're familiar with it, can you handle it, then?—GoldRingChip 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Merged. —GoldRingChip 01:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this merge?

Someone please point to the consensus for the merge to United States presidential election in Missouri, 2012?CountMacula (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

General Election Results

I just added the general election results, including the county by county results, from the Missouri Secretary of State website. However, I noticed that they had broken out Kansas City as its own line. It looks like the votes from the city were officially tabulated separate from the counties that Kansas City occupies. I left it as its own line, just like the Secretary of State had it listed. if anyone objects, and can think of a good way to incorporate those votes into the correct county, go for it.Smooth pappa (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kansas City/Jackson County

Why are the results from Kansas City included in the table of results by county? Kansas City is not a county, and the city is split among four counties. The aggregate total from Jackson County should be presented and not separated from Kansas City, since the city is not entirely in Jackson County. DavidSteinle (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference removed

Note: I have removed a personal blog used as a source on the article to state who unofficially won as it falls under WP:UGC. Additionally, the blog post in question is an anecdote sent to the blogger by someone else. This appears to fail WP:RS. OIM20 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)