Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Kasich

He said he wasn't interested in running for president but he didn't completely rule out a campaign. He also refused to sign a pledge that he would complete his term as Governor. Seeing as it's very common for candidates to state that they are not interested in running and end up running anyway, I think he shouldn't be in the declined group.96.27.124.201 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "I'm not interested" is not a shermanesque statement. A lot of them say that or something similar before they actually become candidates. He should be re-listed as a potential candidate.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with above comments. Kasich has not definitively ruled out a run.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--NextUSprez (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jockeying":

• From United States presidential election, 2016: "Presidential checklist: jockeying for position", Wall Street Journal. Associated Press. Juen 9, 2014. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
• From Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016: "Presidential checklist: jockeying for position", Wall Street Journal. Associated Press. June 9, 2014. Retrieved June 10, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeline for voting

Is it too early to start trying to find data for when states plan on holding their primary?Casprings (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A year later, it is not too early now; and Green Papers are very authoritative: "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change."[1] plus,"Presidential Election Central" has an easy to read table.[2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Caucus schedules are firming up (NY early, CA last)

Getting this right from the start

First off, about the Prohibition party guy. Let's get rid of him. He's not an actual candidate, the GOP leadership and the 24 hour news networks pretty much choose the candidates who get into the debates that are held starting in the summer, and he's never going to get invited. Second of all, I've put up a very tentative schedule. We also need to put in those who have been invited to some of the early forums, like Rubio or Cruz. They may be "whackos" but they're taken seriously by the powers that be, sort of like Michelle Bachmann last cycle. Last time, the GOP primary got four or five long articles. we've got to get ready for that and figure out a format. The way it looks now is not the way it'll look in a couple of weeks, and the way it looked yesterday is unacceptable.Ericl (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide who is a candidate or not. If he's got a reliable source then he's listed. Ratemonth (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not in the primaries page, he shouldn't. I listed the criteria for the last time, and I have a source for what the GOP National committee is going to do for this time. Rance Prebus says that the major news outlets and pollsters are the ones to do it, and like I said before, the minor candidates should be limited to the candidates page, AS OF NOW. If you look at the Democratic Primary page, you will notice that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden aren't even listed anywhere. The simple fact is, it's too early to have anyone listed at all. The time to put up a candidates list is in the summer, when we find out who's been invited to the debates. Ericl (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making major changes to these pages. Ratemonth (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The page/Article (here) is going fine; it evolves as less notables drop off. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Featuring more probably candidates over less probably

It would be a service to the reader if the candidates were ranked to the more probable candidates were more prominently featured over the hopeless. Luckily there is a NPOV way to find out who are the candidates with the highest chance of winning - betting site odds, who have a very strong monetary incentive to unpartially rank the candidates. I suggest we use the odds at [3] to rank the candidates. Thue (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This can be in the text and isn't necessary in a small gallery--in my opinion. ....... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can this URL be part of the Article here? It is very interesting and shows the surge of Scott Walker. If you want a good chuckle, click over to the Democrat favs/odds. Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden lead the pack. -- AstroU (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to see an endless list of lesser candidates (both Republican and Democrat) go to the Green Papers site: both authoritative and informative. [4] Also, as you may know, the list of candidates and list evolution is over at Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Landscape changes dramatically as Romney exits, (for now)

Romney speaks the truth, FYI. Some will seek a Reagan-Conservative to run.

Headline-1: Romney announces he will not run for president in 2016

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/30/2016-scramble-former-romney-backers-strategist-shifting-to-bush/

QUOTE: "Mitt Romney announced Friday that he will not run for president in 2016. The announcement comes after the 2012 GOP nominee told donors earlier this month he was considering a run." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html

QUOTE: For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier. “There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.” -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in '16

• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765667419/Former-GOP-nominee-Romney-will-not-run-for-president-in-16.html

QUOTE: "The exit of Romney from the campaign most immediately benefits the other favorites of the party's establishment wing, including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Follow-up comment: In the first interview since dropping out of the Republican primary race, Mitt Romney told FoxNews Neil Cavuto (1) younger people can run; (2) there are many great Republican hopefuls: voters (and donors) can choose; and (3) Then Mitt Romney (when pressed) says "it isn't going to happen" that he would be the Republican banner bearer. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Being a former lawyer, Neil Cavuto notes he never said never.

References

Senator Rand Paul

Senator Paul announces that he announces tomorrow. Glenn Beck (radio) team says it is like calling your mother-in-law and saying, "On Tuesday, I'm going to phone you and tell you I'm pregnant" and maybe establish a 'pregnancy exploratory committee'. Glenn Beck plays the Rand Paul ad (giving it free radio time) and says it is 'electric' and better than the Ted Cruz ad which simply says he is running. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

FoxNews reports on Republicans in New Hampshire

Headline: At NH summit, GOP 2016 hopefuls take turns attacking Clinton ahead of her arrival

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/19/at-new-hampshire-summit-big-gop-field-takes-turns-attacking-clinton-ahead-her/

QUOTE: " GOP presidential hopefuls turned up their attacks Saturday on Hillary Clinton -- taking turns piling on the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner during a party summit in New Hampshire. The first five 2016 GOP presidential candidates or potential candidates used at least some of their stage time at the Republican Leadership Summit, in Nashua, N.H., to criticize Clinton, who is scheduled to be in the state Monday and Tuesday." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) -- Example: “Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began his remarks by pretending to have mistakenly read a Clinton stump speech, saying he wanted to talk about President Obama’s “great success” in the Middle East. “I’m sorry, this is Hillary Clinton’s speech, not my speech,” Jindal said to laughter and applause.”

The 'First in the nation, primary' warrants a section in the article herein, right under/after the "Ames Straw Poll" section. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Watch this 5-min video before adding the "New Hampshire Summit" section. FoxNews reports (1) 20 Republican hopefuls showed up; (2) The New Hampshire primary is in early February, 2016. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

minor candidates

I put in the disclaimer about minor candidates because it is necessary. Jack Fellure, for example, had he not managed to get the nomination of the moribond Prohibition Party last time out, wouldn't be notable at all and shouldn't really be listed. However he is, and the 90 or so other "no hopers" should be mentioned before the 35 or so that are going to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Arizona are listed. Ericl (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the language of it. What do you think of my version? PrairieKid (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NODISCLAIMERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.235.103 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Other Republican candidates announce

The other main Wikipedia page for candidates announcing is Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 -- This other main page on candidates announcing will have specifics on their announcements.-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference in the two pages is the word, 'Candidate', vs the word 'Primaries'. -- AstroU (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Logos of major presidential campaigns

I think the addition by Spartan Seven to the article is grand. The ten Republicans who have declared are represented by their creative Logos, and in alphabetical order too. The first debate is limited to the best polling top ten, and so as others declare, being in the first debate will be very important to winning the early Republican primary balloting (Iowa, NH, etc.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

→== The best ticket ==

The VP selection can make all the difference in a winning ticket. This is the first time I've seen an early move to announce a possible ticket, rather than just the presidential hopeful: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/walker-ticket-include-rubio/2015/06/12/id/650188/? -- FYI, AstroU (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, the Walker-Rubio ticket was discussed at the "Romney Summit" yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-elite-convene-at-romney-summit-in-search-of-a-clinton-foil/2015/06/12/6aff02b4-112d-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html

FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC) -- For your consideration in editing in the fall (top tier hopefuls choosing running mates).

NOTE: Reporter/writer Lisa Riley Roche of the SLC Deseret News is close to the Romney situation and writes:
Headline-1: Romney not second-guessing decision not to run third time for president

• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630675/Romney-not-second-guessing-decision-not-to-run-third-time-for-president.html

QUOTE: "DEER VALLEY — Mitt Romney said Friday he's not second-guessing his decision not to run again for president in 2016 to make way for a candidate with a stronger shot at winning the White House for Republicans. "I didn’t make the decision not to run again because I didn’t like it or I didn’t think I was up for the task," Romney told reporters..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) -- Ticket was discussed at the DEER VALLEY Mitt Romney "Summit"

Headline-2: Donald Trump: Oprah would be a "great" vice president

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-oprah-would-be-a-great-vice-president/

QUOTE: "After his splashy announcement Tuesday that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination, billionaire businessman Donald Trump made another bold declaration: Oprah Winfrey would be a "great" running mate." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: "Handicapping the 2016 vice presidential field. Yes, you read that right."

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/07/handicapping-the-2016-vice-presidential-field-yes-you-read-that-right/

QUOTE: "1. Susana Martinez...; 2. Marco Rubio...; 3. Scott Walker...; 4. Bobby Jindal...; and 5. Brian Sandoval. On paper, the governor of Nevada is just what the GOP needs. He's a popular, moderate Hispanic executive from a swing state. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I don't think a liberal newspaper has good insights on Republican VP choices, but it is an interesting list, don't you think?

Why is this section needed? This is a page with regard to the presidential candidates themselves, not their potential tickets. Such information should be posted on their own page and/or the general presidential election page. In many, if not most cases, VP nominees won't even be announced until a single candidate emerges at the earliers in late spring of 2016. Michaelopolis (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Reason is that some will end up running for VP, when they thin out. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You could see Trump's friendly visit with Dr Carson, but won't announce anything until Convention. He will want to win first. -- AstroU (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Timeline

Right now candidates that have ended their campaign are put last while others are put in alphabetic order. What is the reason for this? To me it seems that it defies the whole idea of the timeline. I suggest that we either

1.follow the standard that was agreed on in 2012 - The precedence - that will be listed in chronological order

OR

2.listed the candidate in alphabetic order no matter if they have retired from campaigning or not.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hear, here! Good points, Jack. Good to see your comments. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since no one have said anything to the contrary I have choicen the alphabetic order. With this many candidates I do think it will be the best. If you disagree dont simply start an editing war. Keep it as it is and let us talk about it. Looking forward to hear other comments on this subject. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why change it? The precedence order is what is used on the 2012 primaries page - why should this one be any difference? The chronological method established a clear pattern that makes sense; those who drop out earliest are listed first, and it gradually increases with those who stay in longer and longer, all the way to the nominee, the convention, the general election, and the inauguration. If it's alphabetical, then it's just a variety of different bars scattered all over the image in a really confusing manner. It's best to list those who have dropped out at the bottom of the timeline, and then leave those who are still in in alphabetical order so that they're all even. Then, as more drop out, they're arranged in a gradually ascending order. Quite simply, it looks nicer and less confusing. 169.231.20.173 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the precedence is in chronological order from the start point of the campaign, not dividing it so the once that have dropped out is at the bottom. The Chronological way was the way we did it last time. We can do that instead of the alphabetic order. What I am against is simply to put drop outs at the bottom. So if everyone agrees that the first one to start campaigning is on the top and then downwards to the one that starting campaign last it is fine by me. Seperating the campaigns in active and non acitve by putting the intactive at the bottom are not, it look very confusing. Because of the large number of candidates this time I would argue for the alphabetic way, in this way it is easyer at a glance to find the information you are looking at, that is when a certain campaign started and stopped. How it should be done after the election is over in 2017 I dont know. But the way it was before I changed it was not as we did it in 2012 during the campaign. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Putting those who are dropped out at the bottom helps because it clearly separates them from those who are still in. You don't want to look at a field where some people who are out are still clearly mixed in with those who are in. It looks a lot nicer to have the dropouts at the bottom, also by starting point. However, I AM for changing the overall timeline so that those who jumped in first are at the top, and then descending order by announcement date. That sounds neater than the alphabetical order. 169.231.21.146 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for dates contradict

The two sources used for the primary dates contradict each other. For example, the Green Papers ref gives the date for the Republican Iowa caucus as January 5, while the Election Central site gives the date as January 18. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Green Papers are probably more accurate, but they currently say 'tentative' on most of the entries. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article (herein) currently says that the first Republican Primary voting will be in Iowa on February 1, 2016. This is confirmed in the Green Papers. [5]

Iowa Republican Presidential Nominating Process 

• Precinct Caucuses: Monday 1 February 2016
• County Conventions: Saturday 12 March 2016
• District Statutory Caucus: Saturday 9 April 2016
• State Convention: Saturday 21 May 2016

AstroU (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Changing the criteria for major candidates

Now that states are beginning to put candidates on the ballot, how about we use that as a criterion. All the 15 are on the ballot in South Carolina, 14 are on the ballot in Florida (Carson sent the check and the rest except Pataki are going to the mandatory cattle call in two weeks), and Alabama and Arkansas are going to announce who qualified tomorrow. Not only that, all 15 have scheduled "ceremonial" filing photo ops in New Hampshire. We can change the criterion from five major polls to four states on Friday, and up it to ten by the end of the year. Everson might get on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire, and no one else will get beyond two. YoursT (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's follow the criteria used by the debate-broadcast network:

Headline-1: CNN sets debate criteria using Iowa, New Hampshire polls [, and national polls]

• http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/CNN-GOP-debate-criteria-las-vegas-216106

QUOTE: "Candidates can qualify for the debate through one of three ways: polling averages nationally, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire....According to CNN, nine candidates would currently make the cut: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie [in that order]." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Discussion about candidate photos

There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the main election article concering the photos used for the major republican candidates. If you'd like to participate, here's the link to the discussion: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article?.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's always interesting (good to great pictures, vs realistic pictures.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The big show is about to start!

So why doesn't the Iowa Caucuse have a page? Why did the NH '16 page get redirected as "premature?" Where is the results page? There are 15 major candidate on the ballot in at least 10 states (including two that have withdrawn). In two months, this page should be unrecognizable. Let's get ready, hokay?70.107.133.97 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: Section titled "Schedule of primaries and caucuses"

The grid that displays primary/caucus info lists some "Party Leaders" as pledged and other "Party Leaders" as unpledged.

(Aren't they all unpledged? Or is this a mistaken presumption on my part?)

The article should be edited to list all "Party Leaders" as unpledged.

209.212.5.67 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Minnesota date/map discrepancy within this article

On the color-coded map at the top, Minnesota is incorrectly shown in gray (April). The Minnesota caucuses are on Super Tuesday, March 1st, as shown farther down in this Wikipedia article, and in other sources (three shown below). The map should be corrected. (Perhaps Minnesota was mistaken for Wisconsin, which is shown in green and probably should be gray?)

Bjnord (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Campaign Finances

I have added a new section about the money with a table of all the money spend (as they have been released bey the FEC). But I need some help to expand the section with a bit of explanation and the narritive. If you have time to help you might find informations at Opensecrets.org. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the pictures and condensed the table. Looks good! LiveFreeC16 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I find the pictures important, have made the smaller to make the tablet smaller too. And the red text is kinda important in a money tablet. But you are right the big numbers was not necessary Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Washington state

I am the Republican Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) for my precinct in Washington. Based on a call for PCO's I participated in yesterday evening, I'm not sure if the information on this page about the Washington caucus/primary process is entirely accurate. I believe the precinct caucuses on Feb 20 do kick off the process which eventually leads to the allocation, at the state convention from May 19-21, of delegates to the national convention. However those delegates must pledge to respect the outcome of the primary--taking place later on May 24--and divvy up their votes at the national convention in accordance with the outcome of that primary. This is on the first ballot at the national convention. In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates are released from that pledge for the second and subsequent ballots. Thus it seems to be a hybrid process. The actual allocation of delegates--the people chosen--is based on the caucus process but how those people are pledged to vote is based on the primary. I do not yet have a citable reference for this--just the phone call--but if and when I find such a reference I'll update this page accordingly. Dash77 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A footnote or two for the SCHEDULE section

A footnote or two for the SCHEDULE section (would help the readers) in
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_of_primaries_and_caucuses
such as for "winner-take-all for district delegates by district vote"
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Credentialing

A great Wall Street Journal article that will report through convention time.

Headline-1: The Path to a Presidential Nomination

• http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/the-path-to-a-presidential-nomination/

QUOTE: "Some 2,472 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention to select the presidential nominee. The winner must carry 1,237—half of the total, plus one. But the first contests are more about building credibility and momentum than winning delegates." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Iowa numbers

In order to keep this in one place, if anyone disputes the 7-7-6 breakdown, it would be great to pitch in at Talk:United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016#Delegate_rounding, where some are trying to figure this out. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The ever popular and authoritative Green Papers ( http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-R ) lists {7,7,6,3,1,1,1,1} for the 27 'pledged' delegates. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) PS: I suppose the Iowa Republican delegation will finalize later.

The Iowa delegates are bound on the first ballot, but they are not elected before the CD and State Convention. If any candidate suspend his campaign before these convention he will not be getting any delegates. I crunched the numbers myself and to me it looks like the Paul delegates are recalculated to Cruz to give him 8 delegates. That is of course OR, so for now I think it will be best to stick to the Green Papers and RealClearPolitics. They have served us well in the past. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegate counts for suspended candidates

Even though Rand Paul has dropped out, he still has a committed delegate from Iowa. There are likely to be a few more candidates in this situation as the primaries progress. How should the delegate counts of suspended candidates be reflected in the article? Perhaps in the table of candidates with a greyed-out row? Or a notation elsewhere in the article? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion it wad mentioned that the delegate has been recalculated to Cruiz mening that if accurate Paul now has no committed delegates.--174.91.186.82 (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Each state party has its own rules for delegates bound to candidates that have suspended their candidates. Iowa subtract the votes from those candidates that dropout before the Congressional District Conventions on April 9 and the State Convention on May 21 and recalculated the delegate count. South Carolina, a winner-takes-all state gives the bound delegates to the runner-up if the winner suspends his campaign before the National Convention. If the runner-up suspends his campaign the bound delegates goes to the candidate in third place. If he also suspends his campaign the South Caroline delegates will be unbound. I guess we will simply have to see how it unfolds as the primaries goes on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be helpful if the reallocation were mentioned in United States presidential election in Iowa, 2016. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The official result of the Iowa Caucuses are out and the reallocation of the suspended campaigns delegates will not happen before the CD and State Conventions. Most likely many will suspend before that time. But I made a little spreadsheet just for myself using the simple formula of the Iowa Delegates (Candidates popular vote multiplied with 30 divided by the the Total popular vote subtracted the popular votes of the suspended campaigns)). And if reallocated today the two delegates from the suspended campaign (Paul and Huckabee) would go to Cruz and Christie. The confusion about the Iowa delegates might be the change of the RNC delegates status from last time. This time they are also bound to the election result. That means Iowa are sending 30 bound delegates not 27. As candidates suspend their campaign their Iowa Delegates will drop out of the delegate count to reappear after April 9 and May 21. I am sure this will be a cause of more enjoyment and confusion in the future. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no reallocation to be done. If more than one candidate's name is in nomination at the convention, then Huckabee and Paul will receive one vote each from the Iowa delegation on the first ballot, after which the entire delegation is released. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right. What I wrote I read in The Green Paper (the source found under external links in the article) and this source have now been corrected. All mention off reallocation has been removed. Looking for a secondary source I found this article: http://www.charismanews.com/politics/54920-iowa-gop-official-explains-new-delegate-rules It is a newsletter having an interview on Feb 3 with David Chung of the Iowa Republican Central Committee. And yes, he explain that unless only one candidate stands at the National Convention all suspended candidates will have bound delegates. If there is only one candidate standing for nomination at the NC then the whole the whole delegation is bound to that candidate if this candidate got any votes in the election. So Gillmore could be the winner of Iowa with 12 votes if he is the only candidate still active for the National Convention.... Okay that would be bizarro world. But bottom line, you are right and I am wrong. Fortunately it seems that the good people at my favorite source, The Green Papers, have corrected their page so we can continue to trust them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegate hard count / Delegate soft count

Could anyone please explain in the article, what "Delegate hard count" and "Delegate soft count" means? Thx. --GDK (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that this is not explained in this article. It has to do with the state Repubican committees requiring the delegates they send to the national convention to vote for the candidate they represent on the first vote (and beyond as required by their state current rules). Hence, they are a firm vote for a certain candidate. On the other hand, others do not have that restriction, so are not in the 'delegate hard count'. Read the Green Papers. A Google-search did not help. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another term for 'hard count' seems to be 'frozen' and it is easy to understand if you read the very long definitions in Green Papers:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html#Hard To quote: "The "soft count", on the other hand, will reflect the support for each presidential contender by either Pledged or Unpledged delegates- whether formally allocated yet or not- as best can be estimated by "The Green Papers"; Etc." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

The Democratic Primaries Page has a timeline with just the first contest (Iowa) and the Convention. So did the 2012 Republican Primaries page. This page's timeline has every contest up to Super Tuesday, but nothing after. In the interest of consistency, shouldn't the New Hampshire, SC, Nevada, and Super Tuesday bars be removed from the timeline here? Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If we're trying to be consistent, I think it would be better to add bars to the Democrat timeline rather than remove them from the Republican timeline. The bars aren't that obstructive, but they do provide useful information that makes it easier to put the dropouts within context.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do we determine what bars to add? For example, let's say Cruz and Trump battle it out until the April 26 Primaries where Trump beats Cruz and the latter drops out. Then it would make sense for a bar to be added for that date. On the flip side, if no one drops out after Nevada, then it is sort of a useless measure. Since including every primary would probably be chaotic, maybe none should be included until after they happen, so the effects can be measured? (like add a bar if someone dropped out after losing) Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'd recommend removing South Carolina and Nevada since they clutter up the timeline. However, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday (as well as the Iowa Caucuses) should remain since they are critical milestones within the campaign. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should imitate the timeline in Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Timeline. It looks so much nicer. Take a look and compare it to the overstuffed Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Timeline. The lines are so close together they stop making sense. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Not every critical milestones have to be included. To find a balance between visibility and information, I support keeping only the Iowa caucuses and Super Tuesday. These dates are close enough that adding more lines between them only leads to clutter. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think for right now, the 4 benchmark primaries, IA, NH, SC, and Nv should be included. Ones those pass, we can leave IA, Super Tuesday, and the rest clean. Media will make these 3 remaining February contests a big deal, which they are, and keeping them there until they lapse is beneficial.   Spartan7W §   18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But if we'll remove them later, what's the point of keeping them now? I think you agree that the timeline is too cluttered right now, so the question is figuring out which dates to show. We have to keep only those dates that are most important. IA is a no-brainer since it is the first event of the primaries. Following IA are a few so-called milestones that closely follow each other ultimately leading to Super Tuesday. It is sufficient to show only Super Tuesday since that is the date by which we'll get a clearer view of which candidates are viable. Anything in between is just part of the process of what I would call "early primaries" and, although they are important days, they only serve to visually confuse the timeline image.

I'd like to add that these benchmark primaries are discussed at length elsewhere and don't need to be included at the expense of a readable timeline. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, while South Carolina and Nevada are considered important because they take place in February, they provide no substantial marking point for any of the campaigns. Historically, dropouts occurred in Iowa, New Hampshire, or Super Tuesday. Further, the campaigns have spent little to no money and the press given little to no coverage of these primaries. Laurelpeter122 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W and Spirit of Eagle: Anything you'd like to add? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think Iowa, and Super Tuesday should definitely be included, while Nevada and South Carolina should be removed. As for the New Hampshire primaries, I would recommend waiting 48 hours or so. We currently have an incredibly large number of active Republican candidates, and a lot of drop outs have historically occurred immediately after New Hampshire. In the likely event that some candidates drop out immediately after the primary, New Hampshire should remain in the timeline since it will contextualize the dropouts. In the incredibly unlikely event that no one drops out, it should be removed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with @Spirit of Eagle: & I'm more than just a little irritated that my edits have already been removed that conformed to his suggestion, displaying who dropped out when doesn't add any more clutter than some of the other ordering I've seen in other presidential primaries & I would request that the first two contest headers, the Iowa Caucuses & the New Hampshire primary be restored. Stentor7 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whom Hpgjg is but I'm beginning to think he's a troll, he's undone several of my edits insisting that any news articles that don't explicitly have Chris Christie himself announcing the end or suspension of his campaign are just "rumors" which is patently absurd. CNN would not be posting an article on their website if they felt it was just a rumor. Too many news organizations have been burned like that in previous election cycles by announcing these types of events prematurely or falsely. They do source their own articles, so I think we can take it as an article of good faith on their part that it's not just a rumor. Hpgjg also has no talk page even though his earliest change was in 2011, & is a relatively new user edit-wise, hence deepening my suspicions that he's a pro-Christie troll since 13 out of his last 20 edits in his history are for this page. Stentor7 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Colours for the Candidates

As we all know, the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, with New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada coming soon thereafter. As we know from previous years, multi-way races mean that we will likely have a map full of two, three, four colors, perhaps more with this field, to illustrate winners of respective states. In order to differentiate between them, colors are assigned to each candidate to be filled in on the map as the results are finalized state-by-state.

Since the first contest is soon to be upon us, it is prudent we establish a set of colors for each candidate that in the event of their acquisition of contest victories and delegate tallies, we have a uniform standard by which to base map making, so various editors (myself included) can create maps to keep the situation up-to-date. As such, I have created this table and assigned each candidate their own distinct color, chosen to have a wide array of colors that cannot be easily confused with one another, but which are not terribly unpleasing to the eye. Here they are:

Jeb Bush	Ben Carson	Chris Christie	Ted Cruz	Carly Fiorina	Jim Gilmore
Mike Huckabee	John Kasich	Rand Paul	Marco Rubio	Rick Santorum	Donald Trump

Some colors, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee's colors are derived directly from their campaign logos or materials, others are simply arbitrary because most campaigns have very similar combinations of red and blue and thus the map would be very difficult to distinguish.

Hopefully we can all abide by this standard, and I will endeavor to make the official maps as contests unfold to reflect them. Thanks!   Spartan7W §   17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Could we make Cruz and Trump a little bit more different? They are the current leaders in the polls and the two colors are a little too close for my liking considering that they will be the two that are most likely used the most (at least in these early contests). --Majora (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Just had the same thought while making test maps. Now Army green for Cruz.   Spartan7W §   18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. --Majora (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cruz and Trump are still pretty close, especially on darker monitors. Any chance of lightening up Trump's blue a little? Techgeekxp (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Carson and Kasich seem kinda close. Maybe something like   for Carson, and a little darker brown for Santorum   ? Jeb and Trump seem kinda close as well, maybe a little purpler ( ) pbp 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd prefer changing Kasich's colour given Carson's is apparently taken from his campaign material. I also think making Fiorina pink might come off as a bit gendered! Huckabee and Paul are out so black and yellow could be reassigned? —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: Yellow to Fiorina and gray/black to Kasich? Not that it really matters, Fiorina has maybe a week tops left in the race pbp 23:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrible Color Choices on Map

Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruz/Trump colours

Following the discussion above: the infobox colours for Cruz and Trump are quite hard to distinguish—any chance we could brighten up or switch one of them? It'd be nice to make it consistent with the county map, but that map is basically indecipherable with the current colours (see the old version using them here). —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and just changed it to d4aa00 (picking a relatively similar, but brighter colour)—feel free to revert it if you disagree with my choice, I think it looks better though. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the colours is that they represent political groups. Yellow is associated with the Tea Party and blue is associated with the democrats. So people might (unknowingly) be influenced by the use of such specific colours. So let's use neutral colours. Histogenea22 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any place where the Tea Party is officially or informally yellow. Blue is not exclusively Democratic, and the Democratic blue is #34AAE0   Spartan7W §   23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't come across such usage of yellow. Can you provide any examples, @Histogenea22? Searching for "Tea Party map" on Google turns up (among the relevant results) red and, oddly, quite a few maps that use green, but I'm not seeing much yellow. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In every other country in the western world blue is for the conservative party and red is for the leftist party. The Democrats only appropriated the color in 1992; in the 1980s the Republicans were always blue on the network maps. So blue is definitely not exclusive to the Democratic party.

USA is not a traditional western country neither does it have a modern day democracy. And Republicans have not always been rightwing and Democrats have not always been leftwing. Part of what makes this country so strange. This discussion was also on the table i 2012 and I remember reading some source (of course I cant find it today) saying that the colour change was mostly a TV network thing that was taken up by the parties. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it only goes back as far as 2000! There's an article on it at red states and blue states. I do sort of take the point re making Trump blue, but Trump himself uses dark blue very prominently in his campaign and the colour is taken from his logo directly so I think it's fine. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

County results map

In case you all want it, I have a county results map File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto that; thanks for your work. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was an idea to use the same colors as the Template. See the discussion above. Just mentioning it before you do all the work on all the counties of USA Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried that and it was too hard to differentiate Cruz from Trump. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Candidate Color Templates

These can be used as backgrounds, such as in primary result table, to correlate colors for each candidate

{{Cruz16}} {{Trump16}} {{Carson16}} {{Bush16}} {{Rubio16}} {{Gilmore16}} {{Kasich16}}

  Spartan7W §   23:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Other Candidates

As this article is expanding do we really need to mention the other candidates in the candidate section? Does Messina and Cook really need to be in this article and not just in the main article about candidates? And maybe someone can explain to me why these people and the couple of handful of candidates on the New Hampshire election ballots dont need to be there? Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack, Thanks for fixing that; your point is well-taken; much better now. For history, they could be mentioned much later in one sentence, (and in their own WP pages). Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I didnt fix it because my edit was undone. That is why I am bringing it to the talkpage to get the editors opinion before removing the "Other Candidates" section again. I have actually already made a reference to them in the lead of the candidate section by directing the reader to the main article for other candidates than the seventeen main candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- People didn't even know their names. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Listed elsewhere (for the unknown candidates).

Ballot box

Should we add all canidates who had won 1 state or 5% of the votes?Ghostmen2 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. -- AstroU (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow the formal announcements of debate-invites. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeb image

Hi, what do you think in repleacing the portrait used for Jeb Bush, with this one:

• 

It's used in Jeb's article and has a better quality and caption. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is not really any good pictures on Wiki. But he does look like a turtle on this one, so I would prefer the one we have now with his mouth closed, even though he look like he is trying to be polite at a lame party. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump or Rubio First?

There have been many changes, unexplained, by IP address editors changing Trump and Rubio placement. As it stands, both candidates have the same delegate totals. As such, a tie is broken by alphabetical order, as such is the only was to impartially break such a tie. In the primaries, delegate counts, NOT popular votes matter. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the delegation to Obama, and thus lost the nomination. Here, delegate counts matter, as such is the race for the nomination. Because of this, Marco Rubio precedes Donald Trump in alphabetical order, and thus precedes Trump in the delegate listing, whereas Mr. Trump is ahead of Rubio in overall popular vote standings. Until a change in overall delegates moves them around, no changes should occur. Thanks.   Spartan7W §   22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I am not a IP address editor and I changed it when I added the popular vote to this charge. And I did explain it in that edit. Which was changed without any explaining. Of course the delegates should be what counts. But if tied it makes absolutely not sense to use an arbitrary way of breaking such a tie as alphabetical order is. In the matter of a tie the only logical thing to do is to use the popular vote. It might not matter at the convention but all sources list it and it matters in the election process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The race that matters is delegates, not the popular vote. The purpose of this is to track and display the progress of the delegate-winning process. The only way to break a tie between candidates with equal delegate shares is alphabetical order. The popular vote is meaningless in this respect. If it had meaning to break ties, Trump and Rubio would have the same number of delegates. They don't. What matters is they both have 7, which means they tied.   Spartan7W §   23:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How does the Alphabet make more sense? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why list candidates by alphabetical order prior to voting and not by polling? Rubio and Trump are tied in the nomination race. How do you break a tie? Popular vote is as meaningless for these purposes as is alphabetical order. However alphabetical order is the least subjective. If you look at sources like Fox News, CNN, New York Times, and others, they list the delegate race this way as well. We shouldn't conduct original research, and while simple math in this area isn't, it doesn't matter. If we were at the convention with 3,000 theoretical delegates possible, and two guys both had 1,500 but one had 1 more popular vote, is that a fair way to break a tie? No. The popular vote does not factor into the receipt of a nomination. Delegates do, and when delegates are tied, a relevant measure must be taken to impartially sort them. This is what these very reputable and good media sources are doing. It is what we should do.   Spartan7W §   23:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jack: we've only had one state vote so far, in which Trump definitely beat Rubio, so any summary of that has got to have Trump before Rubio. I agree that it gets more complicated after more than one state because it's hard to compare popular vote figures across, but that's a problem for the future. Bondegezou (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the argument that delegates count in the long run and that should be the only yardstick. Keeping score of total popular votes is pointless and idiotic, because those votes only count on state by state basis. I think that column should be removed. I also agree with the notion that we only had one primary as of yet. So I say we sideline the explanation on top of the table until after the New Hampshire Primary, because now it's confusing. Svanriesen (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The candidate order should be decided first by delegate count, and then by the popular vote in the event of a tie. While the election is ultimately decided by the number of delegates, votes by individual citizens is the way that delegates are actually won. There is therefore a strong positive correlation between the number of votes receive and delegates won, so the overall popular vote is an incredibly relevant statistic. The alphabetical ranking of the candidates' names, on the other hand, has no bearing on the outcome of the election and should not be used to rank the candidates. As such, Trump should be listed before Rubio.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Trump first. Has more popular votes. pbp 15:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed on popular vote being tie-breaker over "alphabetical order". Maybe carried states too. Pantenon7 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Rubio first. First ordering should be on delegates, and second ordering on states carried, given that these are the measures actually used in the process itself, falling back to alphabetical order if we still can't break them. Given the vastly different procedures used in different states, the "popular vote" tallies aren't comparable and thus the total, while not entirely meaningless, isn't useful for sorting. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Tump first. I agree with Jack. And the end result will probably be the same, either way it is sorted, especially after Super Tuesday March 1st. Do you realize how soon March 1st approaches? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Let the first-place candidate (at any given time) be first. -- !!!!

Cruz's fair use logo

There are a few reasons why the fair use variant of the logo should not be used on this page. One of which is that there is a free use equivalent that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So usage of the fair use version on this page would be a violation of WP:NFCCP #1. Second, the person that adds the image to this page is responsible for creating a fair use rationale on the image page. Every single time the image has been added that has not been done. Fair use rationales must be done for every page. Failure to do so is a violation of WP:NFCCP #10c. The fair use rationale is fixable. The violation of #1 isn't. The fair use version is not necessary. The free use version conveys the same encyclopedic information. Continual insertion of the fair use version is a copyright violation and not an acceptable fair use exemption. --Majora (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why I created the text-only version. It is his exact logo, minus the teardrop motif. Any person familiar with his campaign with recognize the typeface and setting. Further clicking to the campaign article will show the full logo, with teardrop.   Spartan7W §  

South Carolina delegate rules

South Carolina is listed in the table in the article as winner-takes-all, but this Time article describes it as "Delegates awarded as “winner take all” statewide and by congressional district." Ballotpedia backs this up. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --THANKS! Fixed. Florida is the first Winner-take-all voting, on March 15th. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Be sure to follow the Green Papers, so great: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-R (for Repubican SC).

As explained by the note at the top of the table, any state that doesn't say "based on statewide vote" goes by districts, in addition to the at-large statewide vote. But that isn't the most clear, so I'll go through and make it more obvious. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. Yes, there is a Republican rule that voting in February is 'proportional' for allocating the delegates; and Green Papers lists for South Carolina: "Primary: Saturday 20 February 2016; County Conventions: March 2016; District Conventions: April 2016; State Convention: Saturday 7 May 2016" ... "Delegate Selection: Winner-Take-All (by district and statewide), Polling hours 7:00a EST (1200 UTC) to 7:00p EST (0000 UTC). Voter Eligibility: Open Primary; Voter Affiliation: Voter registration does not include party affiliation; 50 total delegates - 10 base at-large / 21 re: 7 congressional districts / 3 party / 16 bonus" which is clear if you are a student of these state elections for their delegates to go to national convention, but not to the newbie. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- Let's see how this plays out one week from today, Saturday 3/20/2016.

 Done again, and voting went for Trump (all 50 delegates). My thinking was not correct. We now see that the voting at the next two levels (district and state levels) does not change anything, only which Republicans from SC will go to Cleveland to cast their 50 votes for Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a "States won" column

I would like to see a "States won" column between the columns "Projected delegates" and ""Popular vote" (in the section "Candidates with active campaigns)". This would be important since a candidate needs to be first in eight states to be on the first ballot at the 2016 Republican National Convention, July 18-21. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, for convenience could you post the reference for that here? Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

From the Rules of the Republican Party, at Rule 40: (b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Tnks! We are firming up the page for 2016 Republican National Convention where the rules will take effect. See the 'External links' section to download a copy of the NRC rules. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is majority intended in the strict, 50%+1 sense here? Since in that case the 'number of states won' so far would be 0 all round (at least until later today). —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The simple majority (plus one delegate) has to do with the total for all states, not for individual states. The table with their pictures at the top is correct counting up to the goal of 1,237 delegate count. In South Carolina, Trump was at 32% and Cruz and Rubio each have 22% and since SC is a winner-take-all state, Donald J. Trump will have all 50 delegates if the state Republican leaders stick together. See the Green Papers timeframe and count:

RE: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-R ... Do we need to explain more in the article? -- AstroU (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For this article, the Candidates with active campaigns is too narrow and needs the 'States won' column added! -- AstroU (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is "Delegations with plurarity" not the same as "States won"? That colum is already there Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

When to update delegates

In order to be consistent with the Democratic page I think we should update as delegates are projected. Although I wouldn't mind waiting until the convention before adding any delegates to the total at all. But if we wait for state's results to be all the way in before updating the page then what happens for the general election if 4 electoral college votes are projected for Nebraska but 1 is still too close to call (Nebraska splits some of their electoral college votes by district). Do we wait for the entire state's electoral college votes to be projected,ey do we add only the electoral college votes that have already been projected, or do we wait for the electors to actually vote for president? I'm sorry, but if you think we should ignore projections until all the results are in for a state then we should just ignore projections altogether since delegates could possible vote for a different candidate. Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We would do best going with Green Papers. In reading the South Carolina info http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-R it already shows 50 delegates for Trump, and the dates when the people going to state convention will be chosen, where the people going to national convention (Cleveland, July 18-21) but the 50 delegates to the national conference will declare themselves for Trump (winner take all). Expect Green Papers to be right. -- AstroU (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: What are the other most reliable sources for the delegate count? Who explains the rules best?

Just want to mention that delegates could not possible vote for a different candidate. In this cycle the vast majority of delegates are bound to vote for a certain candidate based on their state party's sometimes very byzantine rules. It is not possible to be a faithless voter, as it was the last time around. In most cases the reason they are projected (after the result of a primary has been announced) is that the people going to convention are allocated, but not actual selected/elected.Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, Jack. As we see in the first 'winner-take-all' state voting, (NH and Iowa were 'proportional'), Trump gets all 50 delegates in SC. All that remains is for the state of South Carolina to say who will go to national convention (July 18 it begins in Cleveland, Ohio). As in all states, there are voting districts (to vote for members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives) and they vote/select who among themselves will go to the SC state convention, where they then will vote/select who will go to national convention (Cleveland). At the national convention, when the roll is called (alphabetical) on the first vote, the person speaking for SC will stand and say something like, "The great state of South Carolina proudly casts our important 50 votes for the next president of the United States of America ... DONALD TRUMP, who will, ETC, Etc, etc.)) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The question when to is important though. The answer is of course they should be updated when the source does it. Right now the source (AP) has not yet called 2 of SC Congretional District. Even though it is clear that Trump has won the whole state with votes to spare. The Green Paper has already given all 50 delegates to Trump and I have noticed that it is often faster than AP. BUT.... I would still say we keep AP as the source because AP is an important trusted source, not just in US primaries, but across the board. Yes, we have to suffer a bit from its delayed reaction, but it is still a more respected source than the Green Paper, at least outside the political geek world. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, that sounds fine, although I consider the AP a less reliable source than the Green Papers. Either way works for me. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Table

@LiveFreeC16: This table is used in previous years as well. It is easier to read, quick, informative, concise, and efficient. It provides further information such as office of the candidate, links to campaign and positions articles, campaign logo, correlation to maps, and condensed, simple counts of popular, delegate, and states won.   Spartan7W §   03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The table that provides the results (the one that I added) is a combination of the table that was there and the ones used in 2008 and 2012. There is really no need for redundancy in stating the office multiple times throughout the article. The logo provides nothing new to the article and is not needed in 'this' page, condisering that it is in the main article. The table I provided also is a lot simplier than breaking down when each candidate dropped out and clarfies which candidates are still in the race. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the table is to provide an efficient tool to organize information for ease of access. Not all readers have the leisure to read the entire article. This provides all basic, relevant information in an efficient location. The new table you added both exists in previous articles alongside the disputed table, but also has information which is pointless. Second and third place finishes are of no significant value.   Spartan7W §   03:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Combining the sections into Candidates and results eliminates a ton of redundancy. I can add the logos back into the table, but there is really no use for them, which is why I opted to take them out. I can also add the colors back, again it does add a ton of redundancy because the colors are already clearly well established wherever the casual reader would need them. I can add the colors back, however I would add the colors for all 12 candidates established earlier in the talk page. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why make an all new table? It serves no significant purpose which the disputed table doesn't provide. This new table is harder to read, too busy, cluttered, and has superfluous information. Efficiently organizing information otherwise scattered throughout the article doesn't make it redundant, it makes it accessible for all readers.   Spartan7W §   03:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That is precisely why I made the new table. It clarifies the disputed table.LiveFreeC16 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It also eliminates the need for so many different subsections and breakdowns, etc. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In order to come to an agreement, would we be able to add the colors to the new table, add the logos to the new table, and add the offices of the candidate? Like this:

Candidate		Delegates earned overall	Popular vote	States – First place	States – Second place	States – Third place	Campaign
Donald Trump		67	385,686	2 New Hampshire, South Carolina	1 IA	0	Active (Campaign • Positions)
Ted Cruz		11	249,645	1 Iowa	0	2 NH, SC	Active (Campaign • Positions)
Marco Rubio		10	239,141	0	1 SC	1 NH	Active (Campaign • Positions)
John Kasich		5	104,589	0	1 NH	0	Active (Campaign • Positions)
Ben Carson		3	77,229	0	0	0	Active (Campaign • Positions)
Jeb Bush		4	94,413	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 20, 2016 (Campaign • Positions)
Jim Gilmore		0	145	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 12, 2016 (Campaign)
Chris Christie		0	24,353	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 10, 2016 (Campaign)
Carly Fiorina		1	15,191	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 10, 2016 (Campaign)
Rand Paul		1	10,381	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 3, 2016 (Campaign • Positions)
Mike Huckabee		1	3,560	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 1, 2016 (Campaign • Positions)
Rick Santorum		0	1,934	0	0	0	Inactive as of February 1, 2016 (Campaign)

Withdrew before the primaries

• 
  Fmr. Governor
  Rick Perry
  of Texas
  (endorsed Ted Cruz)
• 
  Governor
  Scott Walker
  of Wisconsin
• 
  Governor
  Bobby Jindal
  of Louisiana
  (endorsed Marco Rubio)
• 
  U.S. Senator
  Lindsey Graham
  of South Carolina
  (endorsed Jeb Bush)
• 
  Fmr. Governor
  George Pataki
  of New York
  (endorsed Marco Rubio)

This way, it condenses the section while keeping the essentials of the table that you talked about and removes a lot of redundancy. I can add the remaining colors as well. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Second and third places are irrelevant, especially third places. Please delete it. We shouldn't make these places more important because the candidates (who lost) try to make them look important. Histogenea22 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on no second and third places. The withdrawn candidates should have a separate table with smaller rows/pictures in my opinion (at least until the primary is resolved), as it stands I feel like they're given too much space. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it also possible to place the popular vote percentage underneath the absolute number? I think that would be a good addition since it gives a better picture of the situation. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not, I've just added it on the article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump image

A conflict has arisen with an editor who insists on using another image due to a 'smile'. I wish to establish here a consensus as to which image ought to be used to portray Mr. Trump.

• 
  A
• 
  B

• Support A: This image is more recent, and closer to portrait quality than B. The problem with B is apparent. It has a very poor angle, and one sees more torso area and more under-neck than face. A is head-on, a neutral and common expression for Mr. Trump, it shows his entire face, there is no conflicting shadows due to angle, and his trademark hair can be immediately distinguished. A is quite recent, has natural color, and has been established, by discussion, as the infobox portrait for his biography article while not the perfect image, A, which has been the infobox and related articles' main portrait for quite some time ought to stay. The editor's assertion that a 'smile' constitutes a superior image does not fly with me.   Spartan7W §   22:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support A largely for the reasons given by Spartan7W. It looks more professional, and it was taken during an August campaign event. In comparison, picture B was taken in 2011, over four years before the start of Trump's 2016 campaign, meaning its not the best depiction of Trump's appearance during the actual campaign. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support A: Because B has a very bad angle Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support A: Although I'm sure there are better pictures--neither A nor B is good. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support A: Agree with Spartan7W. Bir oqughuchi (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support A: Trump taps the voter anger with The Regime; he doesn't need to be smiling. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- With consensus, the picture on the right (A) looks good in the article. -- AstroU (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Rules will force "A Two-man Race By March 15"

No, it is not 'crystal ball' by Dick Morris, but rather the Republican Party rules. Threshold requirements will kick in after Super Tuesday, and if the candidates are still polling in single digits (because the votes are divided over the many candidates) only Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz will have the sufficient 'threshold'. It is predictable mathematics. Here is his observation of the Republican rules: http://www.dickmorris.com/a-two-way-race-by-march/#more-17204 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rules do not force this in any way. It is simply his belief that this will be this way. It is possible that it remains a three-way race if a third candidate retains a 20% share of popular vote. Mr. Morris doesn't see this, but this is in no way a predetermined fact of GOP rules.   Spartan7W §   15:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone show me the rule against a brokered convention http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/22/a_brokered_convention_in_2016_why_it_might_happen_what_it_might_mean_129119.html

As I read the rules everyone of the candidates can stay in the race and new ones can be added inside the rules. It will mean that no one candidate will have enough bound delegates to win at the first vote. Some delegates will be unbound after the first vote, others after the second and so on. Or have I lost a new fancy rule in the republican primary? And while I am writing: The delegates from Iowa WILL be bound to the election results tonight. I read so many places the opposite, even from professional journalists. Well the rules have changed after the Rand adventure at last cycles state convention. The catch is that to get any bound delegates the candidate has to be in the race when they are selected (April 9 at the CD level and May 21 at the State level). The result of tonight's caucuses will be recalculated to exclude the candidates that have dropped out at that point. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Charles Edwin Shipp: Just because there are thresholds and triggers doesn't mean that it has to be a two-man race: Trump could hit triggers in one state, Cruz in another and Kasich in a third. Support removal of two-man race language pbp 02:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Three things: (1) Jack, so great to see you particpating! (2) PurplePack, thanks very much for the ping; I certainly agree, fully; (3) I was quoting Dick Morris and we write history, not news. Hence, we can wait and see. We certainly don't need the "two-man" race term at this time. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We could use a little help over at Iowa_caucuses where I just entered "The 15% Threshold" thread into the TALK discussion. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Although I haven't stated this in writing: Actually (to me) it looks like after Super Tuesday (March 1) it will be a four-man race: (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and hopefully, Dr Ben Carson!)

• Since we're positing what's going to happening in the coming weeks:

1. Trump, Cruz and Rubio have bought themselves time in the race at least until Super Tuesday
2. Fiorina and Santorum will drop out any day now.
3. Christie will lose NH and then quit
4. Kasich will quit after NH unless he beats Rubio there
5. Jeb will stick around at least until SC
6. Carson doesn't have anybody to tell him "get out", so he'll probably stay awhile
7. Paul will stay in till the end to make a philosophical statement
8. Gilmore shoulda dropped out months ago and is running as a hobby

pbp 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In the 'PROCESS' section, it could be noted as a last sentence/paragraph: The March 1st Super Tuesday voting in 14 states will be 'proportional', followed by a change on March 15th to states being allowed to change to 'winner take all' with Florida, Illinois, Ohio being the first states to allocate delegates all to the winning candidate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirming your 'crystal ball' thoughts, the invitations to the debates puts lesser candidates into two classes (1) those who realize they will not be on the stage and in the TV public view, and realize they should drop out, having 2% popularity; and (2) a few of these who want to stay in to the end (till Cleveland Ohio, Republican Convention) even though they are below 1% popularity. So we are now down to nearly seven Republican candidates, and Dr Carson says he wouldn't mind running as VP. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: My point is that the debate-invites thin the field. They 'suspend' till convention.

Here's a headline, coining the term 'stay-alive-five' Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, Bush: What NH results mean to the still-alive five. -- AstroU (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that Dr Ben Carson is invited to the debate tonight (having more popularity than Bush and, in particular, Kasich) there are SIX active campaigns. Green Papers lists 13 hopefuls, seven of them having 'suspended' (but not dropped out of the Republican primary race). They, perhaps, hope to reignite in July at the Republican national convention in a brokered convention (if and when one of the top three does not have a simple majority of delegates voting, i.e., less than 1,237 during the first few votes.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

To be on the first ballot July 18-21, a candidate needs to 'win' eight states. What if only Trump and Cruz have the eight states threshold? Today, Newt Gingrich said that Trump may hit a ceiling of 40% and would need to break through [with a less offensive message] and that "in a two-man race, 40% is losing by 60%." Anyway, we shall see, won't we. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Many now see the obvious: "A three-man race" with others tagging along. Dr Carson will stay in, even though he knows he is not in real contention. We all hope that he does. With the rise of Marco Rubio, it is now a 'three-man race' and will be into National Convention. -- AstroU (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is going to an "open convention", meaning that no one candidate will have the nomination on the first vote. Even after 'winner takes all' voting beginning with Florida, Illinois, and Ohio (on March 15th) the other candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Carson) will keep Trump from getting 1,237 delegates and winning on the first ballot/vote. Subsequent votes will be required. This is because there will still be some proportional voting in some states. It remains to be seen how the open convention will go in Cleveland. Trump will not get 50% of the delegates before an open convention July 18-21, 2016. -- AstroU (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But keep in mind that if Trump "runs the table" and wins the majority in remaining states, or all but a few, and neither Rubio nor Cruz gain the majority in at least eight states, then only Trump would be eligible to be on the first ballot. It is rumored that the NRC would try to change the rules of an open convention at convention time, and say the threshold to be on the first ballot be reduced to winning at least five states, or some other consession to allow others besides Trump to be on the first ballot. In the TABLE watch the last column. If Kasich loses his home state (Ohio) to Trump, pressure will take him out, (in my humble crystal-ball). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Official tally of NH delegates

The official tallies of the New Hampshire election were released today, giving Trump 11 and Rubio 2 instead of the unofficial count that had Trump at 10 and Rubio at 3.

"The state Republican Party announced that Secretary of State William Gardner certified the delegate count based on the primary voting. Businessman Trump received 11 delegates as a result of receiving 35.5 percent of the vote.... Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who received 10.6 percent of the vote, received two delegates, according to the NHGOP announcement.... Nationally, Trump now has 68 delegates, according a running tally being kept by Bloomberg Politics. He picked up all 50 delegates that were available in South Carolina’s primary." http://www.wmur.com/politics/official-gop-firstinnation-primary-delegate-count-gives-trump-11-kasich-4-cruz-3-rubio-2/38129082

Other sources reporting the same thing are: http://nhpr.org/post/trump-awarded-11-nh-delegates-after-primary-victory-nhgop-announces-0 and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/270310-trump-wins-additional-nh-delegate

The New Hampshire state GOP's official announcement is here: http://nh.gop/2016/02/22/nhgop-announces-certified-delegate-allocations/

These are official tallies, not the unofficial estimates that have been cited previously. 108.249.89.120 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no "official tallies" until the Convention. That being said, every source that we use - (http://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/?apikey=uSsHZA4dlPsWwDRHDAndAwIIQZ8OQgug), (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R) estimates the delegates the same. We could make note that there is discrepancy, but it really is not too trivial. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. The WMUR citation calls the final numbers released by the NH GOP "official". The citation from thehill calls these the "certified" numbers, in contrast to the AP's mere "estimation". "Rubio finished with 10.6 percent, just behind Bush's 11 percent. But while the AP believed the near tie would lead to a tie in the delegates, the new count confirms that is not the case" (again from thehill).108.249.89.120 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, both the AP and Greenpapers will likely update their estimations by the morning. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The delegates are bound to vote according to the certified results, so they are more important than the initial projections. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Update - fixed the article/template. Using the main source (AP/GreenPapers) but noted that the NH delegation was different than estimates. LiveFreeC16 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Suppose one of the top three candidates “runs the Table”

Yes, let's suppose one of the top three candidates “runs the Table” ...
Which state puts the top candidate beyond a simple majority of delegates?
Let {C1,C2,C3} be {Cruz,Rubio,Trump} and Let C1 win 100% in the ‘winner-take-all’ states and 50% in the states dividing delegates proportionally.

Add the delegates from Feb-June to project the running cumulative results: IA15+NH12+SC25+NV15+AL25+AL14+AR20+GA38+MA21+MN19+OK22+TE29+TX78+VT8+VA25+WY15+KS20+KY23+LA24+ME12+PR12+HI10+ID16 +MI30+MS20+USVI5+Guam5+DC10+FL99+IL69+MO52+NC36+M9+OH66+Samoa9+AZ58+UT20+ND28+WI42+CO37+NY95+CT14 +DE16+MD38+PA54+RI10+IN57+NE36+WV34+OR14+WA22+CA172+MT27+NJ51+NM12+SD29.

Adding these delegates will give us a “rough guestimate” of what to expect: IA15+NH27+SC52+NV67+AL92+AL106+AR126+GA164+MA185+MN204+OK226+TE255+TX333+VT341+VA366+WY381+KS401+KY424+LA448+ME460+PR1462 +HI472+ID488+MI518+MS538+USVI543+Guam548+DC558+FL657+IL726+MO778+NC814+M823+OH889+Samoa898+AZ956+UT976+ND1004+WI1046+CO1083 +NY1178+CT1129+DE1208+MD1246+PA1300+RI1310+IN1367+NE1403+WV1437+OR1451+WA1473+CA1645+MT1672+NJ1723+NM1735+SD1764.
Maryland and Pennsylvania vote on April 26th, not that far away, to exceed the 1,237 delegate simple-majority. Still, there will be a somewhat open convention.

PS: Current NRC rules: C2 & C3 need to win eight states to stay in.
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Date for North Dakota

I live in ND. The ND Primary is March 1st "Super Tuesday". In this article it says April 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a reference which I found with a simple Google-search:

www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ND-R ... ("Tuesday 1 March 2016: The North Dakota Republican Party conducts caucuses.") -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I switched it to March 1st in the article. If someone wants they can move it up so it is with the other Super Tuesday states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.128.9 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What is confusing is the fact that ND have seceded from the Presidential Primaries. Their Caucuses have been held since Jan 1 and will end on Mar 1. No straw poll is taken and no delegates to the state convention will state their preferences. At the no straw poll will be taken and no delegates to the national convention will state their preferences. The State Convention will "discuss" and "advice" whom to vote for at the National Convention but all delegates are free to vote for anyone they like, as the rules clearly specify. A different way to go. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe the convention is in April but all of us GOP in Fargo are voting March 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.63.219 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And in Iowa is the convention in May but they all voted February 1st. Most states elect their National delegates on conventions but allocated them long before. ND does not allocated any delegates and this year you will not even be voting on any presidential matter. And neither will they in April. That makes ND special among all the states and I guess that is the core of the problem. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Timeline

Forgive me if I bring up a closed discussion or beating a death horse so to speak. But is it really the consensus to keep the A timeline instead of the B timeline. We know the A (the one presently in the article). The B option has the start of the primaries (Iowa Caucuses) and Supertuesday with nothing in between. I it just me that feel that the B version is easier to read? I really feel that the current option had gotten out of hand. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A

B

B for the reasons I mentioned above. The time between Iowa and Super Tuesday are the early primaries and it doesn't matter at what point exactly a candidate drops out. We should keep only the most important milestones. B is much cleaner and readable. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• B, but with New Hampshire included We only really need to include the bare bones of the campaign in the timeline, but I consider New Hampshire to be amongst these bare bones since its the first primary, gets media attention equal to that of Iowa, and saw 3 candidates (approximately 17% of the total field) drop out due to their poor performance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • B; It's less cluttered and easier to understand. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of the race (section) ... Overview (subsection)

I really like the Overview (subsection) under the Timeline of the race (section) with the horizontal bar chart, with vertical time-markers. Jack, can you add two more important dates? (1) March 15 "Begins 'winner take all' voting"; and (2) June 7 is the "end of state voting". Being in Denmark, maybe you could do this as we sleep here in CA. On June 7th we will vote "winner take all" and send 172 delegates to Cleveland 'open' convention. Keep up the good work! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I live in Ghana Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack, the colors for the last three vertical bars are not matching correctly. The convention bar is red (and should be purple). Perhaps two vertical red bars could be added for:

• "Winner-take-all option begins" ... (on March 15th)
• "End of state voting" ... (on June 7th)

This is a valuable visual/graphic, which I love referring to, often. Thanks, AstroU (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree in the importance of the winner-take-all start-date. I know it has been branded by the National GOP as important. But the new Winner-take-most category that many states have invented to get around the proportional demand have diluted its importance. Of course that is merely my opinion.

Sure we can switch the colours of the election and the convention (right now convention i magenta and election is purple) go right ahead and do it. I am curious though. Why Should the Convention bar be purple, does that color purple have some special relation to the Republican National Convention? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to change the new colour scheme Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, Jack; keep up the good work! The Timeline looks great in its current configuration, showing the end of Primary voting, leading into national convention.-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Understanding (1) Pure Proportional, (2) CD 2:1, and (3) 20% threshold

I'll read our own article here and see if this is explained appropriately. I saw this described by Karl Rove on FoxNews TV today:

• Pure Proportional (is easiest to understand) and includes the states of VA(40), MA(42), AK(28), VI(16).
• It divides the delegates proportionally to the candidates according to the voting in the state.
• CD 2:1 includes TX(108), TN(28), AR(25), OK(25), AL(21), (in state congressional districts).
• Similar to proportional, but doubles delegates for the person that 'wins the state'.
• 20% Threshold includes AL(50), GA(72), TN(58), TX(108), VT(16).
• Candidates must exceed the threshold in their vote count to receive any delegates at all.
• For example, in Texas (Ted Cruz's homestate) Kasich, Carson, and possibly Rubio may be under 20%.
• Karl Rove gives the example that if a candidate receives 21% of the vote, he or she is included in the proportional distribution of candidate votes, but if he or she (like Carli Fiorina) receives 19%, then he or she RECEIVES NOTHING .!. [BOLDING emphasis is mine. like in Charlie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory]

Super Tuesday will be very interesting and we can assess the improvements to the article then. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC) PS: It is further complicated by the fact that the state Republican leaders will wait and see who has the momentum, or who they want to stand by on principle, and then decide in the state convention or the national convention.

• NOTE: The rules for the Republican Party (nationally, and in each state and providence) are set by the NRC Rules Committee, and allow each state to decide how they conduct the voting (caucus or primary, etc.) and then how to distribute the voting delegates to the candidates. In this, Republicans like to preserve "states' rights" and allow the state Republican committees to decide how they operate within the parameters, but the National Republican Committee sets the rules for the Repubican Party as a whole. One thing that the NRC has in their current rules is that 'winner take all' voting cannot start until Feb 15th with Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and others.

Schedule of primaries and caucuses Needs Work

The section needs a bit of work. I was thinking using the table that the [[6]] page uses under the "Primary schedule" section. Can anyone transfer the info into a neater and more condensed table?LiveFreeC16 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In my sandbox I have been working on a table like the one we used in 2012. I have remade up to supertuesday but I still have a lot of work, it is a lot of information to keep straight and put into the right boxes, so if you are against us using this kind of table please say. You can look how far I have redone it in My Sandbox Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Final results in the article look good and informative. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this done, or do improvements continue? Just asking, AstroU (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry havent had time to work on my sandbox. I have reach Missouri. Will try to get it finished, but maybe the one in the article is much better? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Now it is done. I have put the new improved schedule in the article, take a look, improve and comment. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the winner should be included on the chart. 98.148.184.132 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that not all states have a winner. Oh yes I know that the media likes it to be a superficial sport match with one clear winner and a bunch of loosers. Iowa is counted as a win for Cruz. He got 8 out of 30 delegates! Except for the winner-take-all states, there is no winners. Just serious delegates that are going to a serious convention that also works after the TV channels have switch to something else. The only place it is important to get a "win" or a plurality of the state delegation as it is really called is in the RNC rule of a threshold of plurality in 8 state delegations to make it to the first ballot. This is covered in the first table of the article. But when the primary season advances I think it could be a good idea to add columns with the bound delegates for each main candidate. You can see how it was done in the 2012 article. That is all work for after Super Tuesday. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)