Jump to content

Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sounds more like a drama

The article sounds more like some fictional drama (ex. A Campaign in peril, Huckabee makes a comeback) I'm going to try and change the tone of the article unless anyone has an objection. --Bigvinu (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If no majority occurs?

Then what? The field is crowded; it's completely possible.--Mokru (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one gets over half, then all the delegates vote as pledged in the first round at the convention and then vote again and again until someone wins (which will usually happen because someone does a deal - e.g. Huckabee agrees to be VP under McCain and their combined delegate total is over half) Quadparty (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This kind of procedural information is needed in the article. My point is anyone reading this article isn't really familiarized with the process under all cases.--Mokru (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, the link to brokered convention is sufficient because procedures would be speculative. The last time a Republican candidate didn't have a majority of pledged delegates going in was 1976 when Ford had a narrow lead over Reagan but was slightly short of a majority, but Ford won a majority on the first ballot so that is generally not regarded as a brokered convention. 1948 was the last time on the Republican side multiple rounds of voting was needed. One of the first orders of business if it looks like it will be a brokered convention is deciding what the procedures will be. (It's clear they keep on voting until someone does have a majority, but how much time between voting, time for floor debates, etc would have to be set.) Also note that even if there isn't a brokered convention there's nothing that prevents the winner from asking the 2nd place finisher to be his running mate. Jon (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Required Registration

Maybe i'm looking in the wrong spot, but I think it would be valuable information for readers to know whether or not voting in the primaries for certain states requires that one be 'officially' part of that party. e.g. Where can we find a list of states with open primaries and those that require registration along party lines?

If this exists, we should link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.150.141 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dependent upon state law. In many states, there is no party registration, you just show up to the polls on primary day and say you want the Republican ballot. Other states do have party registeration but allow election day reregistration of party so again all you have to do is show up. (I even heard of one in which it's routine for Independent voters to register as one of the two major parties, vote in it, and then on the way out re-register as an Independent.) There may still be some states that would require you to declare you to change registration in advance. California was one of those in the 80s, but I don't know if state law has changed since. Jon 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia's primary date is not listed. Why is that? Aren't they having a primary? Quacks Like a Duck 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added D.C. to 2/12/08 - thanks for the heads up! 69.146.32.251 04:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

For Jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:

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

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

At-large (AL): At-large. At-larges delegates consist of all delegates elected to the national convention except for congressional district delegates. At-large delegates also include the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state chairman from each state party and American Samoa , the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See Republican Party Rule 13(a)(2).

Minnesota

I just heard that MN is moving its primary to Feb.5-John

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick

Labeling Primaries and Caucuses

I don't think it's a necessary thing to label IA and NH as a caucus and primary, respectively. I think it's unnecessary clutter on the page that makes it more difficult to find the information you're looking for. Or, if we do want to label them, then we ought to figure out a way to label every state, since every state (not just IA and NH) will have that distinction. At the very least, let's just hold off on the labels until we figure it out. Thanks. 69.144.23.94 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than Kansas, every state does indeed hold one or the other, but it's agreed it's not particuarly realevent outside of the state. Jon 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. A caucus is very different than a primary. A primary is very similar to a general election with a list of candidates and a secret ballot. A caucus is wholly different; people get together and announce their preferences, there is horse-trading and realignment, and the secret ballot does not apply. The answer here is to determine which process each state uses and update the article accordingly, not remove useful information. Vidor (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Phase Zero Events

Does anyone else here think it's ridiculous to list any non-binding events other than the Ames Straw Poll? If we list all the local straw polls across the country, we're going to have an out-of-control page here. Ames is where candidates actually compete, give a demonstration of the strength of their organization, and is the only "phase zero" event that really deserves mention. We should keep this page professional and tidy. --130.108.192.181 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think there should be at least some links to the straw poll results. Wikipedia is a vast source of information, and I appreciate the desire to keep it lean and tidy, in fact I totally agree, but those straw poll results are valuable information. It would be extremely valuable to have a single place with either all the results, or at least links to the results of all of the largest straw polls per state. That would mean there would be one straw poll per state, which is not unwieldy at all. 66.16.162.134 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point to having any "phase zero" events on a page that deals with the primaries themselves. It's great info, but it belongs on the campaign page or somewhere else. 69.144.23.94 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

American Territories

I was under the impression that the GOP also alotted delegates (although not many) to American territories like Puerto Rico, Quam, the American Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Is this correct? If so how many votes do they get, how are these votes decided, and when are they decided? ~goodleh 20:22, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than "Quam" above should read "Guam", yes, they've done so in the last several cycles. I would guess they calculate the delegates to give them on a similar basis to how they calculate the 50 states delegates. It's roughly based on number of Republican voters, but I don't know the details. Jon 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are these above territories not included in the list? When are their primaries? Dan (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

For Jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:

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

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

At-large (AL): At-large. At-larges delegates consist of all delegates elected to the national convention except for congressional district delegates. At-large delegates also include the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state chairman from each state party and American Samoa , the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See Republican Party Rule 13(a)(2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC) The Primary Season: 2008 Republican Calendar

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kansas

If Kansas isn't holding a primary or caucus, what happens to their delegate alottment? ~goodleh 21:08, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Kansas has had delegates at the conventions in the last few cycles (who voted for the winner) so I guess the Kansas Republican party picks them but leaves them uncommited. Jon 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Huckabee won here... someone should update the main page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.192.70 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Iowa?

Doesn't it bother you that Iowa always goes first? I would think a better, more fair, idea would be to place state primaries in random order each year. The first primary would be one state, the second two states, then four, etc. keep doubling until you've completed all the states. This comes out to six primary elections. It's more organized and fair. Kurrgo master of planet x 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire's date

a source is needed for the claim of when it may be held, also I do not believe any date has been made official by the state and that there is some speculation that it may be held in December of 2007, but sources are needed regardless --voodoom 06:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Jan 8th. AP, CBS, Investor's Business Daily. --fortunzfavor (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.165.245 (talk)

Iowa is missing

Looks like someone took it off the primary/caucus list today or yesterday. --fortunzfavor --68.12.165.245 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming

I don't get it. It seems like Wyoming has already begun it's caucuses, as of two days ago? See Wyoming Choosing Delegates. Could someone please clarify and post? --Abdul Muhib (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a wacky process, since Wyoming does the county conventions (and tabulates the votes) but the delegates to the county convention are selected by the precinct caucuses which are held in December. However, the actual tabulation of votes does not occur until the county convention occurs. Calwatch (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Delegates

The 2008 Call for RNC Convention - which includes the rules for the delegations states that there are no automatic delegates (other than the State Chair and the 2 RNC members for each state) for the Republican Nominating convention this section is inaccurate, and should be updated by someone who know what place - if any - Republican Senators and Congressmen etc. have in formally selecting the candidate. Quadparty (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Count Screwy

I reset the delegate count because news reports have been very conflicting. Frankly, the Yahoo news source cited seems to be the incorrect source, but I can't guarantee that. CNN is reporting something very different: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA . Let's wait this one out until this is resolved in the next day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyboy22 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple: CNN allocates delegates via strict proportionality, while the Associated Press allocates delegations by the county convention, and assumes that the winner of each county convention wins the representative to the state convention, and as such, when you look at the county winner map (http://www.iowagop.net/), you can kind of see that Huckabee took about 80% of the counties and Romney about 20%. From the Iowa GOP web site, The results of this caucus activity on both the Republican and Democratic sides are not binding on the elected delegates, but the delegates usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers. Thus the initial caucus results provide a good barometer of the composition of Iowa’s national delegation, keeping in mind the effect that candidates’ withdrawals can have right up to convention voting time. http://www.iowagop.net/inner.asp?z=4 So given this statement, I tend to believe CNN and not the AP here. The question is whether, in the winnowing process from precinct to county to congressional district to state, they just elect by majority, or whether the state convention will choose to follow the Iowa Republican Party's advice and vote proportionally. In any case by March 8, 2008, when the County Conventions are convened, the number of delegates are going to be moot since the race will have been decided, and if they are not moot, they are such a small percentage as to be not relevant (unless it really turns out to be a brokered convention.) Calwatch (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The other problem is that unlike the Democratic Party, which publishes most of the state Delegate Selection Plans online, most Republican Party web sites have not. Thus, I am forced to rely on thegreenpapers.com and local media web sites for most of the Republican information. Calwatch (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of minor corrections, I think "majority" in your sentences about the state convention should read "plurality". Unless of course by March 8 all but one or two of the major candidates withdraw. And it is possible (athough highly unlikely) that Iowa's vote brings a candidate over the top. Jon (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count shifting?

RCP website is showing a shift in delegates away from Romney & McCain and towards Huckabee. Is there brokering going on among delegates? It looks like the current result should be Romney 48, Huckabee 32, McCain 13 and Thompson 3. B (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the RCP and CNN websites don't have the same counts, how about dividing the Estimated Delegate Count/Percent columns into two, one for CNN values and one for RCP values? --208.26.156.4 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska's new caucus date

Isn't having a caucus on a Saturday unconstitutional? Saturday is a day of Shabbat for Jews in which they will not work or even drive a car. Caucuses do not allow absentee ballots. That means that all Jews are excluded from voting. That is against the constitution. Also, how are caucuses in general constitutional when it excludes military, infirmed, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it is because the caucus is a Party matter. The First Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," a right that the Supreme Court has called "freedom of association." It has interpreted this to limit the government's ability to interfere with internal political Party affairs. See, e.g., Eu v. S.F. County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (invalidating California law prescribing certain rules for the selection of party chairs). The selection of a nominee is ultimately a function of the Party, and as such is largely subject to the Party's rules. See, e.g., Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (invalding California "blanket primary" law). Although the Supreme Court has placed some limits on this discretion (for example, a Texas Democratic Party rule that disqualified African-Americans from voting, see Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)), it is quite deferential to Party decisions. At any rate, there is no constitutional rule against holding elections on Saturdays. The Supreme Court has said that a rule of general application that happens to disproportionately affect a particular religious minority is not unconstitutional. See Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (Oregon ban on peyote constitutional, even as applied to Native Americans that use peyote for sacramental purposes). I am not an expert on First Amendment doctrine and so someone else is free to correct me, but it would seem to me that, given the Employment Div. decision, so long as the Party doesn't prohibit Jews from actually participating in the caucus the Party is under no obligation to schedule the caucuses in a fashion that is convenient for Jews that choose to observe the behavioral restrictions you mention. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Caucus's are officated by parties and not by the state government. They are only bound by state law not federal, and even the few laws only have to do with the use of public buildings and access for both parties. A caucus in reality can include or exclude anyone it wishes. Some caucus, for races other than president, only allow votes who are registered and voted for that party in the previous election. --mitrebox (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Mitrebox, you state the party's discretion to exclude individuals too broadly. In Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court held that the Texas Democratic Party was a "state actor," and the constitutional limitations on the government's ability to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race also applied to the Texas Democratic Party. If either party had a rule that barred the classes of individuals that Zzmonty mentioned (Jews, military, "infirmed" (handicapped?)), it would surely be struck down by the courts. However, a rule of general application, such as the day of the week that the election will be held on, or the requirement that participation be in person and not by absentee ballot, is constitutional even if it disproportionately affects religious minorities, under Employment Div. v. Smith, since it applies generally to the entire population. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Smith v Allwright was a primary. Primaries are elections run by the state, caucus are run by parties. The right to vote in a public election will always be upheld because often primary elections often have other local admentments and laws on the ballot. A caucus is different, it is the leadership of a private organization and nothing more, no one has the right to vote in a caucus. --mitrebox (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The label (caucus or primary) is immaterial. If the distinction that you're emphasizing was dispositive in Allwright, then the solution would simply have been to have two ballots: one the party primary ballot, and the other being "other local admentments [sic] and laws." In Allwright, the Texas statute simply said that whatever voters a political party said were qualified to vote in the primary could so vote in it. The Texas Democratic Party had an internal rule that only whites could vote in its primary. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Texas Democratic Party's internal rule for use in the process for selecting who would appear on the general election ballot. "The privilege of membership in a party may be . . . no concern of a state. But when, as here, that privilege is also the essential qualification for voting in a primary to select nominees for a general election, the state makes the action of the party the action of the state." Allwright, 321 U.S. at 664-65 (emphasis added). At any rate, if the particular facts of Allwright trip you up on this matter, see instead Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953). There, the "Jaybird Democratic Association," a local club of Democrats, excluded blacks from the internal primary it conducted on its own. The winner of that privately-conducted election then routinely went on to win the Democratic Party's nomination to the general election ballot in the subsequent, publicly-held primary election. "The Jaybird Party thus brings into being and holds precisely the kind of election that the Fifteenth Amendment seeks to prevent. When it produces the equivalent of the prohibited election, the damage has been done." Id. at 469. Whether organized by the Party or not, the Party may not discriminate on the basis of an impermissible classification with regard to those procedures that determine who will appear on the general election ballot. My point was that providing for Saturday as the day of an election does not discriminate on the basis of an impermissible classification; nobody has been expressly classified (e.g., taking the example that started this discussion, Jews that attended the caucuses were allowed to participate), and Employment Div. stands for the proposition that a law of general applicability (or, in this situation, an internal party rule that is analyzed as though it was a law, since the Party is a "state actor" when it involves itself in selecting nominees for public office) is not unconstitutional if it happens to disproportionately affect a particular religious minority. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I read T v A. But there are Three points that differentiate the case. SC ruled the Jaybrid group was created solely to disenfranchise blacks. Secondly, the due to the outright power of Democrats in the district the primary was to defacto election. Last, one had to be a member of the group inorder to be a CANDIDATE for the Democrats. Therefore because blacks could not be in the Jaybird and Dems were so powerful, Blacks did not have a fair chance of voting for a black candidate. My point is different, Say the Bull Moose Party of Texas had a caucus for President. The rules state anyone could be a candidate, but only native Texans are allowed to caucus. T v A would not apply because the caucus is not the defacto election of either the party or the nation at large, with other competitve parties in the general the BM party does not specifically disenfranchise non native Texans of either Candandacy or voting for a candidate of their choice.--mitrebox (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
While your hypothetical certainly differs from the facts of both Allwright and Terry, it does not address the reasoning used in those cases. In particular, while you focus on finding factual differences, you haven't accounted for the Supreme Court's position that, when a state political party controls who gets to participate in the nominating process, it is a "state actor" and as such, is bound by the Constitution's restrictions on state action (in your hypothetical about the Bull Moose Party, that would be the right to interstate travel protected by the 14th Amendment, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrArticleOne (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like Texas or bullwinke just strip that part out and read again. In T v A the Jaybirds were only a state actor because the primary was the only election that mattered. Having a competitive election would have nullified that opinion for the court. No caucus is the defacto election for President. --mitrebox (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Court did not rely on that fact to reach its decision, however. Even if you're right that there is a salient difference in the facts, your response to the original query was still not correct, because it represented as settled doctrine that which (even under your own theory) the Court has not passed on, and the best answer would be the one that is consistent with the highly analogous cases. If you want to argue that there is room for innovation in the doctrine on these facts, that's fine, but that's something to do in a law journal article; representing as a settled question that which is not to a non-lawyer is not responsible. On a law school multiple choice exam question, I can guarantee you that my answer would be the correct one for being the "best" answer, that is, the one most consistent with prior doctrine (as opposed to one that relies on differences in the facts that the Supreme Court could hypothetically use as a basis for decision). MrArticleOne (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (finally get to use this managerial phrase of the day calendar). Good job popping up with the obscure 'Right to Travel' case. There really should be a TvA article since it essentially was forerunner of the Voting Rights act. Either way its sort of moot, Saturday primaries do exist in this enlightened age where as Renquest put it in a memo about TvA the SC seems pressed to pop up as a watchdog every time racism rears its admittantly ugly head. Furthermore if one was to get rid of Saturday caucuses what day would be 'safe' from offense? Sunday(Christians), Saturday(Jews), Friday(Muslims)? Tuesday has traditionally been safe, but some democrats could argue that weekdays disproportionately disenfranchise the working class. While, others could argue that weekends would disproportionately disenfranchise service class workers (younger, poorer, and in the south blacker than most other industries) who are more likely to have to work weekends. People always want change, right up until you start making changes.--mitrebox (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming Primary Tomorrow?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1699144,00.html It appears that Wyoming are having their primary tommorow, according to Time. I would edit it in, but I'm not sure how... Someone help? Hagger (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, misread the article. My apologies. Hagger (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming is an invited county convention, with (nominally unpledged) delegates chosen from precincts in December. Calwatch (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Iowa lose half of its delegates?

Iowa obviously held its caucus before Feb. 5th. Nevada and some other states are listed to have their primaries before the 5th too, but this article only lists five as losing half of their delegates. Do the Republicans make exceptions for some states, like how the Democrats make exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, or did somebody just incorrectly say that only five Republican states will have their delegates halved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSims (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. They make exceptions for 'not-a-primary' --Elliskev 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wyoming though did have half it's delegates stripped. Yesterday was going to be when they chose 12 of 28 delegates, with the other 16 chosen later but the national party took away 14 of them. Wyoming then decided to assign the reduction to the later election, so yesterday ended up when 12 of the 14 delegates were chosen with just two remanining for their later election. Jon (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I suggest that 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Results) be merged into this article. There are way too many forks as it is. --Elliskev 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with removing that page, but they should be moved to new pages of individual states' primaries. Same with the Democratic primaries. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Elliskev but disagree with CrazyC83, we don't need 50 something* articles on the 2008 presidential primary results. (*The 50 States, plus DC, plus PR, plus some other US territories send delegates to both the Republican & Democratic convention to vote on their parties nominee.) Jon (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Results), because it is the only article on the elections that actually provides the results in a nice table that is easy for the lay person to understand. I hope that somebody puts this link on the main election page. 69.120.135.108 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map shows Romney winning Colorado. He won Wyoming; Colorado doesn't vote until at -least- Super Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.68.52 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to only be an issue with the SVG version of the image; the JPG appears fine. Goatburger (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Results map is incorrect.

Colorado is highlighted as having been won by Romney, instead of Wyoming. Could someone please correct the map. Wyoming is the other rectangular state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wy guy (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a color for Alan Keyes on the map, but not color for Ron Paul? Paul made 10% in Iowa. Keyes made 0% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtflood1976 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul's there. He's in orange. --Aranae (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Jtflood1976 said Keyes made 0%. Keyes' votes have not been counted or reported yet. John Lund at the Iowa GOP headquarters in Des Moines said "We didn't have the electronic means to record the tallies for Keyes, so we can't yet report to the public how many votes Keyes got ... We can't report the Keyes votes until we've double-checked each individual paper ballot." See "Iowa GOP refuses to report Keyes votes" at http://www.alankeyes.com/articles/080104iowa.php The story was also reported by LifeNews at http://www.lifenews.com/state2731.htmlSavvyconsumer7 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't McCain win Louisiana? The map shows Huckabee. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Keyes to candidate list

Upon researching Alan Keyes' candidacy, Keyes was added to the list of multi-state candidates at * United States presidential candidates, 2008. He is on the ballot in 19 primary states, and will participate in the Caucus states, as well. He entered the race Sept. 14th, 2007 -- just 9 days after Fred Thompson. He is regularly included in American Research Group, Inc.'s national and statewide polls, and polled equal with Ron Paul (3%) in the USAToday/Gallop poll after his appearance in his 2nd national debate, the Des Moines Register/IPTV Debate on Dec. 12, 2007. His results for the Iowa Caucus have been held-up by the Iowa GOP, who has neither counted or reported Keyes' votes. For more information, see http://www.alankeyes.comSavvyconsumer7 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I added him.

Jeffrey Bean, Jr. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still not on the charts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_presidential_primaries, though. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we add Peter Griffin while were at it? The man isn't listed on a single mainstream press site. He's effectively (or more accurately ineffectively) running as an independent on a republican ballot. There are no results from the Iowa GOP because the Iowa GOP does not require precients to report write in candidates if the total number of write ins is fewer than % votes of the precient winner. Typically write-ins as a total count fewer than 2% of all ballots cast. Must have skipped that while 'researching'? --mitrebox (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mitrebox was indefinitely blocked for using a bot to repeatedly remove a candidate from an article. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Savvyconsumer7, The talk page is a place to record conversations about the article and its content, with a focus being on improving content. The talk page is not a fourm and is not a history log. 207.235.64.30 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When decisions are being made based upon unsubstatiated, inaccurate information, would you not agree that it is appropriate to present the facts of the matter, so a reasoned decision can be made?Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Including Alan Keyes (particularly at the exclusion of far more serious candidates) is biased and unfair. He did equal in ONE of several thousand polls thus far (something he never repeated). You are comparing him to Ron Paul who has raised literally more than 100 times as much money, actually has held elected office (and still does), has participated in numerous major candidate debates (versus zero), is acknowledged by news agencies, is on all 50 ballots, and has actually won delegates - infinitely more than the zero Keyes had. We all know how retarded, I mean biased, you are. Why not fight with ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/MSNBC/BBC/NY Times/Wall Street Journal/Washington Post/LA Times/Chicago Tribune and EVERY news organization in the US and the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.187.96 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the deletion but distance myself far from the sentiments above. Keyes was never a credible candidate and was never a top 3 vote-getter in any state, and it would be misleading to put him on par with candidates 1.) with legitimate organizations and 2.) proved their relevance by finding some success at the ballot boxes; in comparison, Keyes had less than one-tenth of one percent in New Hampshire and was irrelevant everyplace else. --Kallahan (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmmm whois putting Alan in here? Oh here it is http://discuss.alankeyes.com/showthread.php?t=482&highlight=wikipedia . That second name looks familiar. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that neither supporting a candidate for office, nor opposing a candidate is grounds for exclusion as a contributor in this forum. It seems most people would be excluded, if that were the criteria. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Mainstream press site: | The WashingtonPost.com lists Keyes as a 2008 Republican Presidential candidate. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I presume Tancredo and Brownback are not included here because the article is about the Republican primaries. Tancredo and Brownback withdrew prior to the first primary and have not and will not receive any delegates. Keyes is a multi-state candidate who remains in the race. Keyes retains the potential to gain delegates in upcoming states, particularly the Texas election which is scheduled for March 4th. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, USA - Republican Party Caucus

Puerto Rico Republican Party Caucus is 02/24/2008. Sunday 24 February 2008 (tentative date): All 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders in today's Puerto Rico Presidential Primary.

23 delegates are to be allocated to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide. Delegates are bound to endorse the presidential candidate which they are certified as supporting.

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

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

Please add Puerto Rico to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.233 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Stripping (or as I like to say Stripping Delegates)

Feb5th states had their delegates stripped. What happens to the striped delegates?

  • Did the RNC reduce the total number of delegates need to win?
  • Do the delegates go to the winner at large? (sort of a token win)

--mitrebox (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Striped delegates don't get to vote for president, vice president, or any other business. Presumabely based on Wyoming & New Hampshire, the state convention level decides who got striped and do so soon enough for news outlits to quickly make estimates. In the case of Wyoming, they definately annouced their plan on what to do prior to selecting 12 of their delegates (keep all the cacus ones and all but eliminate the effect of their later primary). Whatever method New Hampshire used resulted in McCain getting 7, Romney 4, and Huckabee 1.I agree that a source on how Michigan and South Carolina plan to strip would be useful for now. (Apprently does not matter for Florida since the winner statewide there takes all state & district delegates.) Michigan's case is somewhat more interesting than South Carolina's since while both are chosing the district delegates in winner take all for each district, Michigan is using proportial for state wide while South Carolina is also using winner take all of the state for the statewide ones. I do note in Michigan there aren't enough statewide delegates to assign the entire stripping to them while in South Carolina there aren't enough district delegates to assign the entire stripping to them. This is presumably because South Carolina is much more reliably Republican than Michigan and therefore gets a lot more bonus state wide ones than Michigan. One thing to note though for both the Republicans and Democrats though is if a candidate has a majority of pledged delegates going in, the first order of business may well be restoring striped delegates votes. Jon (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
More details on Michigan, there's two possible ways to strip the entire delegation in half. Option 1 is each congressional district only gets 1 WTA vote instead of 3 and the statewide proporations are unaffected. Option 2 is each congressional district gets 2 WTA votes instead of 3 and the statewide delegates are entirely elimated. Any other option would result in some congressional districts sending more voting delegates than others. The "token win" applies to the Michigan Democratic Primary (and Florida's) in which the entire delegation has been stripped. Jon (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
More details on South Carolina, there are four possible ways to strip the entire delegation in half. Option 1: All district delgates eliminated. Statewide delegate count trimed to 24 WTA. Option 2: Each of the 6 congressional districts retains all 3 of it's WTA delegates (total 18), and the state wide delegates downsized to 6 WTA. Options 3 and 4 retain 1 and 2 WTA delegates per congressional district respectively and 18 and 12 WTA statewide delegates respectively. Jon (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, CNN and AP differ. CNN just divided the number of delegates that would have been assigned by two (leaving the two unpledged superdelegates open), while AP assigned the superdelegates to candidates Romney and McCain proportionally. The GOP delegate selection process is much less transparent than the Democrats' process, which leads to a whole host of confusion. Calwatch (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If CNN is just using normal rules and dividing by 2, this could actually mean the state parties haven't actually decided who gets stripped. That's not less transparent, merely the parties themselves don't know. 100% stripping is easier to figure out than 50%. Also in Iowa, the Democrats don't release actual vote totals of people voting for presidential candidates. They instead merely release delegate counts to the county conventions, which are then run to determine estimated delegate count to the state convention and then estimated count to the national convention. Jon (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

south carolina more important then nevada for republicans??

why is it that south carolina is getting so much more attention then nevada in the media? according to this wiki page the delegate counts arent that much different, or am i wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Painkiller4500 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be because it's a primary (and an open one at that), rather than a closed caucus. It's also being contested, which makes it much more newsworthy. Quadparty (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
South Carolina is actually a contest
  • Romney is going for a delegate count, cherry picking states he can win. Media doesn't film that non-glamours strategy
  • Romney was the only one who went to NV, no contest for him. Yawn, film something else
  • SC determined the winner of 2000 reps (not so much this time but still)
  • SC is a traditional proving ground for the south NV is unknown
  • SC requires people to declare party and vote that party in november. People voting for Candidate X WILL vote X this nov if he wins
  • SC has fewer delegates, but has a traditonally high turnout for primaries, means close contests, good television.--mitrebox (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A few notes. SC is later the same evening. SC has voted for the nominee since 1980. (However this primary is much closer to the 1976's one in which that wasn't the case.) Oh and SC does not require people voting in the Republican primary or the Democratic one to actually vote that way for President in November. They are merely still registrated as in that party in Nov. (Because otherwise they could vote next week in the Democratic primary). I also note that Rudy is "cherry picking" even more so than Romney though. However a successful cherry pick in Florida is a glamourous story becuase of the huge swing in percentage of delegates. Rudy would go from almost no delegates to second place if he gets one more vote in Florida than his closest opponent. In any case though, there's not many people who see some candidate finish 1st in some other state and sudenly vote for them. What's much more common is people seeing their candidate doing extremely poorly in another state and thinking "OMG, he has no chance, I better vote for someone who actually has a chance." Jon (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Duncan Hunter

Is this official? If so , some stuff on the artical needs to be fixed

Edit: I believe this has been fixed.

- Holy Hand Grenadez

Table of candidates - inconsistency

I was going to remove Duncan Hunter from the table of candidates, but the invisible comment says that the table is intended to be "historical" and candidates who drop out should still be listed. If so, where are the other candidates who have dropped out? (I suggest it would be more useful to readers to change the table to "current candidates", but - regardless - there should be some consistency - either all dropped-out candidates are listed, or none are.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an important difference between these candidates and the ones who dropped out earlier. These ones have delegates, which makes them notable as they can pledge them to other candidates. The main article 2008 US Presidental Candidates has a MORE historical list of canidates. The comment should be changed to say DONT REMOVE WITHDRAWN CANDIDATES THAT HAVE DELEGATES. I'll finish up rambling about how Alan Keyes is only running to pay off past campaign debts, won't withdraw till the convention because a failed run won't politaclly hurt a man who has never held an office, won't get any delegates on Super Tuesday or any other tuesday, and for all intensive purposes isn't running a multistate campaign and doesn't deserve to be in this table. There I said it.--mitrebox (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did McCain win Louisiana?

Technically, McCain came in second to "uncommitted pro-life". Should Louisiana be listed as a second place finish for him (and thereby a third for Ron Paul)? --Aranae (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 82.60.26.158 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Louisana has part of its delegates in a closed caucus. I'm not familary with it since it didn't make the news much. As long as the delegate counts are correct on this page, Lousiana's probally more relvant on McCains campaign page and Paul's page.--mitrebox (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Louisiana has a multi-part process, of which a likely somewhat consequential part went through on Tuesday. It's probably worth noting, but it's hard to see why McCain would be put down as a winner when he came second to a none of the above slate. My guess is that McCain owes his position on wiki to the fact that Ron Paul came in behind him, and there's a lot of Dr. Paul fans out there who'd like to call that a second place win. In terms of delegates to Minnesota and such, however, it does not appear to be the case (in fact, it's not at all clear what effect the vote will have on the final delegate count). Still, it is clear that McCain's slate came in second and Paul's came in third. Jamesofengland (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the results is a better place, but basically in the LA cacus, it was winner take all but a majority of state delegates was needed. This naturally resulted in a multi-candidate race in many people who back various candidates joining together to form the "uncommitted prolife" group, which won. 2nd place doesn't matter. In fact if McCain's vote was too large realtive to the other candidates it would actually be a disadvantage because that would indicate that fewer of his supporters were in the winning "uncommitteed prolife" group that got to choose their slate of delegates. Jon (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've droped Louisana closed cacus from McCain, Ron Paul, and Romney. It was won by "uncommitted pro-life", and not any of the candidates. And that group got all the delegates so 2nd and 3rd place don't matter. Jon (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any sources concerning delegate distribution in the state that supports this? It doesn't appear to be winner-take all, so I would have assumed that there is a proportional split. --Aranae (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article itself had been stating for weeks that the closed cacus WTA with 50% majority required for weeks. It now seems to have been revised. Your right in that the previous version wasn't sourced and the current version isn't either. In any case though the delegates from this don't adqueately get ratified until the state convention and there have been some dropouts since the district conventions (Fred Thompson and CNN last night was reporting that Rudy G is going to drop out today) so there may be a change, so without a source the best choice is to leave Louisana closed cacus out for now. Incidently, this may also cause the final numbers from Iowa and Nevada to be different from what CNN earlier projected but that will also have to wait for either their state conventions or for CNN to change their projection numbers. Jon (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Best source I saw (from the Results subarticle) is: http://www.lagop.com/ (Louisana State Party Site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncnunn (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought the winner-take-all component was for those delegates allocated based on the primary on Jan 9. I think the caucus/convention results will still be proportional or will be due to another election winnowing those 105 state delegates to a certain number of national delegates. --Aranae (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MITT ROMNEY

Is Romney really just "suspended"? I heard he pulled out of the race... should his page be updated to say so?

I believe it was technically "suspended" (unless it changed in the last 24 hours or so). He's no longer running, but a suspended campaign still allows certain things like fund-raising to continue (I don't think people who'd pledged money, but haven't paid it, could pay it if he completely pulled out). John Edwards also suspended his campaign: in his case, it was so he could receive the matching funds from the FEC he was entitled to, but hadn't received at the time his campaign ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadparty (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

order of current candidates in the candidate table

I don't see any rationale to the ordering of the candidates in the table, which smacks of POV. I think it'd be prudent to alphabetize the current candidates (separate from the withdrawn candidates, which should be ordered by the date on which they withdrew). Any thoughts on this? —XSG 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They appear to be in the order of greatest to least number of delegates earned, followed by withdrawn candidates ordered by the date on which they withdrew - most recent withdrawal first. I don't have a problem with this ordering, but wouldn't have a problem with alphabetical either. Quadparty (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the table on Democrats in ordering first by active vs withdrawal and then alpha, and these two tables really ought to be sorted the same. Jon (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-ordered the active candidates alphabetized by last name. I don't like the idea of an insignificant candidate like Keyes being so high on the list, but those are the breaks of NPOV. - Chardish (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the individual primary/causes order the results by number of votes. Further, I suspect most people are interested in "who's winning". As already stated, the Democratic page orders by number of pledged delegates for active candidates, and then alphabetically for inactive candidates. Andareed (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. there's no neutrality problem by organizing by delegates earned rather than by alphabet. That is, in fact, what most people are looking for when they come to this page: the box score; there may be other players on the roster, but if you don't get into the game, you're not really contributing. -- Kallahan (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pending calendar move section

Isn't it quite a bit late to move primaries up to early Feburary? It would seem to me that if the decision hasn't already been finalized by now the ballots can't possibly get printed in time to move it up. In fact most (if not all) of the 1st Tuesday in Feburary states holding primaries are already allowing early and/or abstente balloting. Jon (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the Feb5th section was in the Feb5th article. I shortened it to cover only information relevant to this article (ie DELEGATES CUT IN HALF FOR STATES X,Y,Z) --mitrebox (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm refering to the "States in the process of moving their primary/caucus" section, towards the bottom of the article. Jon (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed that section entirely. It's way too late to move up a primary to this Saturday let alone tomorrow. Jon (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That Ron Paul edit a few hours ago

I didn't make that edit but the reason behind it is that the numbers reported for Maine are based on a presidential preference poll, not the number of delegates. According to Ron Paul's site here Ron Paul has about a third of the delegates so far, thus second place. Mithridates (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think in the states won / 2nd / 3rd section, it should only least them if the candidate won at least one delegate from that state. (In which case, the 2nd & 3rd places in Florida & Maine would be blanked out. And similarly today's statewide WTA states would only list 1st as well.) Jon (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It would still be nice to have an unbiased source for the information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN states Maine was at 9:34 p.m. EST, Feb 2, 2008 with 68% of results in

  • 1. Romney 2362 State Delegates : 18 National Delegates
  • 2. McCain 958 State Delegates : 0 National Delegates
  • 3. Paul 851 State Delegates : 0 National Delegates
  • 4. Huckabee 268 State Delegates : 0 National Delegates

Jon (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources showing that Ron Paul placed 3rd in Maine.
— http://www.mainegop.com/FlexPage.aspx?area=caucus2008results
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Republican_caucuses%2C_2008
— http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/021675.html
— http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020201026.html?hpid=topnews
— http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/02/03/gop_members_finish_up_caucuses_today_but_romney_wins/

-asx- (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above sources are all citing the presidential preference poll, not the actual delegates secured. Ron Paul won 2nd in Maine by number of delegates. 75.21.114.3 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias towards the Democratic Party?

This is an article concerning the Republican primaries, but there are too many instances of "Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party ..." -- as if the reader is supposed to understand the Republican primaries through the Democratic lenses.

In the Democratic counterpart to this article, there is nary a mention of the Republican Primary procedures; the Democratic primaries are undertood on their own. There's a need to balance that. 76.193.218.93 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why note Be Bold and change it? Jon (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Romney delegates?

Do they vote their conscience, or do they get together and give their votes to one of the candidates still standing? Brian Pearson (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In states where the delegate selection is final (most of the primary states), they are now effectively uncommitted. I do note though that in the cacus states which haven't selected their national delegates yet, his state delegates to those conventions are now effectively uncommitted as well so there may be shrinkage in those states of Romney national delegates. The same thing applies on the Democratic side to John Edwards. I also note though that technically both Romney & Edwards suspended their campaigns (like Dean in 2004). Jon (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This may sound a bit dense, but what does "effectively uncommitted" mean? And what does it mean to have shrinkage in those states of Romney national delegates? Brian Pearson (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically in most of the cacus states their delegates to the national convention had not yet been decided. They had instead only decided state delegates to the state convention (or I think in Iowa only decided on precient delegates to the county conventions; same principle.) Election night projections had been on the assumption that at each of the higher levels, the delegates would vote the same way. By "effectively uncommitted" I mean that the Romney delegations can vote indivually for whoever they feel like. They are equally free in the state conventions to stick together to try to get some of their members onto the national delegation. The bottom line is no one is going to know the final delegate count until the last of the state conventions. Jon (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other major candidates

What about Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore? They were major candidates and are not included herein... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.187.96 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They withdrew in 2007. Jon (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Third place portion of chart not reordering properly

Any ideas? --Kallahan (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Alan Keyes

Since this keeps getting reverted, I figured I'd get some outside attention.

I wouldn't say that Alan Keyes is a particularly mainstream candidate, but he is a candidate. He's listed as one on sites such as The Washington Post, and as far as I'm concerned that's good enough for inclusion.


Approaching it from a "Should Keyes be included?" angle seems to invite partisans; we may want to instead ask what the criteria for inclusion are. Mention in the media? Allocation or expectation of delegates? Funding or donations, incoming or spent? Presence on ballots? Just a few ideas. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say he should be listed somewhere, but not as prominently as in the first table. Having at least one third-place primary/caucus finish seems like a good criterion to me for inclusion in that table. --Michael WhiteT·C 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd keep him in the same way we keep Gravel in (although there is a move afoot to change that). He is a candidate, running a national campaign, showed up to more than one debate, and has raised a decent amount of money. Calwatch (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Has Alan Keyes won a delegate in any of the states or territories so far? I think candidates on the list on the main page (on both the Republican and Democratic side) should only be included in they have earned at least one pledged delegate to the national convention. Jon (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To say that one is a candidate if they have received a delegate or one is a candidate if they've gotten third or better are both original research unless we have a source that defines candidacy in those ways. Both criteria are also fairly absurd in my opinion; either of them would've eliminated Rudy Giuliani as a candidate before Florida, which would've been ridiculous given the amount of media coverage he was receiving at the time. All we can report is what reliable sources do, and I still say that the Wash Post including him is good enough. Oren0 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would we use the Post over the sources already used in the table? The table already cites CNN and RealClearPolitics as sources for the delegate counts, neither of which mention Keyes. If we're going to use a neutral source, we should be consistent. CNN and RCP fit this bill just fine. -- Kallahan (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
CBS isn't listing Keyes either. (The Democratic main page uses that one for pledged delegate count). Jon (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Over

Isn't it all over with McCain winning? The strongest remaining contender is Ron Paul and anyone who is sane knows that there is no way he can win with the number of delegates he has. Every single significant competitor (Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Huckabee) has dropped out.

Ironic, given how much of a hole McCain was in last year (can anyone say 'come-back geezer'? lol). Contralya (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary and candidate sections are in line with political reality. I do think that the "states won" columns are now totally non relevent though and in any case duplicate the Details pages. This will be even more non revelent as the remaining primaries come in and McCain wins against token opposition (Ron Paul doesn't seem to have cracked double digits anywhere), and in the state conventions to come where the previously pledged delegates for Romney & Huckabee declare themselves for McCain, increasing McCain's national delegate count further. Jon (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page become more of a history of the race now, as McCain has been formally declared the winner? 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
McCain hasn't been "formally" declared the winner. That will happen at the convention. Quadparty (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the race for Republican nominee isn't over, Sure, McCain reached the magic number, but that doesn't mean he won. Because of the fact that Paul is still running (for some odd reason), McCain still has to run to get it, or at this point, hold the title until June or so. Abcw12 (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait until Ron Paul has withdrawn from the race before stating he has withdrawn? The Ron Paul video referenced, in which he himself speaks, doesn't say that he has withdrawn. I am just following all of the hoopla of the American elections as an outsider and thought this was a potentially harmful technicality mistake. 83.104.225.76 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Undid a revision by Lampman that stated Ron Paul had withdrawn " Paul's message is described in the press as a withdrawal". Well CNN says "Paul hints presidential campaign will end soon" (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ron.paul/index.html), ABC says "Ron Paul Hints He's Quitting Race" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4405610), Fox says "Ron Paul Signals to Supporters He’s Dropping Bid for Presidency" and also mention something about hinting (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/07/ron-paul-signals-to-supporters-hes-dropping-bid-for-presidency/), CBS says "Ron Paul Hints He Will Quit GOP Race" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/politics/main3916188.shtml?source=search_story), and I'm sure any other mainstream network you care to mention will say the same thing, as the story is from Associated Press, ABC originally titled their article "Ron Paul dropping out of GOP race" and shortly changed it to "Ron Paul suspending Presidential Campaign" and shortly changed it again (I'm assuming because both titles are completely fabricated assumptions based on more assumptions). But until Ron Paul announces he has officially withdrawn, he remains a "Current candidate". 83.104.225.76 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He has clarified he has not dropped out, and does not intend to drop out despite his acknowledgment that he is very unlikely to win. [1] The source also goes on to note the obvious, "Last Thursday, Paul issued a message to his supporters in which he never quite said he was dropping out of the race -- but that some in the media interpreted that way." 83.104.225.76 is right in his analysis, ABC changed their headline three times, each with varying levels of inaccuracy. Other news media picked up on the false story and spread it around, but now it is more than established that he remains a "current candidate." ~Rangeley (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone has once again changed the status to "winding down," however his explanation for the statement is that as there are few primaries remaining, of course it is winding down - but he remains a current candidate just the same. He currently remains in the race, he is contesting the next races, so I would have to put the question out there: if this doesn't meet the criteria of being a "current candidate," what does? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

like 2004

are you guys going to do the same thing you did in the 2004 democratic primary page tell what happened User:Nick37

Idaho: Caucus or Primary?

The page lists Idaho as having a Caucus. But http://www.idgop.org/About/ and other sources list Idaho as having a primary. So which is it? --75.91.78.241 (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And ditto on New Mexico, which it looks like is officially a primary: http://www.localendar.com/elsie?JSP=PublishedCalendar&mode=PUBLISH_PUBLIC&search_type=M0&start_date=06/01/08&calendar_id=323224&rss_link=323224 --75.91.78.241 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken citations

The first citations at the Arnold sentence under Super Tuesday are broken. I'd asked User:Nick37 since it came in when he almost tripled the size of the article. Does anyone else know? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska Republican Primary, 2008 Article

Can someone help me out with the editing of the Nebraska Republican primary, 2008 article. I edited the #'s. They are final and correct but the chart is messed up.Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) Hay thanks for the help. I updated the #'s one more time, there definately correct, I just dont know how to add sources on here. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thingg⊕⊗ 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


A discussion now taking place at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details could provide a precedent for limiting edits to this article (there is already talk in that discussion about changing other articles). With that in mind, I'm hoping editors of this article will consider participating in that discussion (which may close soon).

Some editors think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Something similar is done in the article on the Democratic presidential primaries with a brief mention of Jeremiah Wright, although I saw nothing on other associates mentioned in the campaign. Examples of both Republicans and Democrats:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment across articles, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles that cover campaign issues adequately should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at the Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer

These primaries weren't technically "Primaries." They were "Presidential Preference Election"s. Is it worth it to move the article, or just leave it as they are more well-known as primary elections? Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul was invited to the proposed Values Votesr Debate

Ron Paul was invited to the proposed Values Voters Debate. See link Huckabee agrees to a values voters debate for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtr10 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the rest of the popular vote totals? I am curious what the other people got. Please put a talkback {{TB}} on my page if you respond.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary Schedule

Can someone add the Primary schedule for 2008 just like there is one in 2012? It makes it easier to navigate the primary than digging through tons of results.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul on the info-box

Why should Ron Paul be in the info-box? He didn't win any states, unlike Mccain, Romney and Huckabee, and Paul's vote share was four times smaller than that of Huckabee, who came third. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing...seems like blatant promoting. On the democratic side, John Edwards isn't included and he came in second in Iowa. Moving to remove unless someone has a reason why not to. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The rule is 5% of the vote or win 1 state83.86.208.191 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a rule for third party candidacies in general elections, however there is no applicable rule to primary elections that I am aware of. Please cite the rule or policy that you are referring to. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
we use the rule in general elections and also in primary elections. If you watch other pages you will see it 83.86.208.191 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with add Paul again145.52.141.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to who to include and not include in these primary elections. The 5% is only applicable in general elections. Without a consensus rule or guideline to follow, we approach these on a case-by-case article. Paul was not that notable in 2008; 2012 he does deserve inclusion. MavsFan28 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then we need a mod to make the decision.83.86.208.191 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
again, i add paul in the box because your change is not legal83.86.208.191 (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The 5% threshold is standard and understood across all election pages. Evidently, it has caught on as the IP addresses show above. 5% applies across the board. If you want to change the consensus then do so. You have not done so. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very convenient that an IP with very little edit history is taking the exact same position as you and is supposedly well versed on wikipedia policies and consensus. Unless you can show me one example of the "consensus", then it would be impossible for me to change. You have not shown one, as it does not exist, thus we edit these articles to the best we can rather than follow some non-existent policy. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Consistent standard across all articles is consensus. The IP did a malformed request at the 3RR noticeboard. He doesn't seem that well-versed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they're well versed at all in reality, but they seem to believe the same idea of this consensus as you do. Odd since they haven't really edited at all. A flawed standard without any actual basis is not a consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
They're not well-versed in reality because they disagree with you and your nonexistent standard? The 5% standard is consensus as it has been used across all election articles for at least 5 years without any dispute until you started your crusade.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What is my nonexistent standard? You're the only person so far who is citing a policy that does not exist. In the past, I have found vandalism in articles that could date back months or years; an edit being long-standing does not count as a consensus. My article-improving "crusade" will end when you produce this consensus. Unfortunately you have not yet done so. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what your standard is because you have not proposed one. You do agree that consensus has been established for general election articles? Every primary election page uses the same standard. This is not just some simple vandalism, this is a vast consensus across thousands of pages for many many years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I proposed establishing a consensus since there is none, though nothing has come of it. Have you gone through those thousands of articles and confirmed they follow the same made up rule? MavsFan28 (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consensus: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." Nobody objected for over five years (or more) to the five percent threshold until you decided to change it unilaterally. "Have you gone through those thousands of articles and confirmed they follow the same made up rule?" Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you also show that it was universally agreed to with editors? Because saying that no one came across the article and/ or disagreed with it is pretty selective understanding of that policy. Again, I can guarantee there are articles with long-standing vandalism - that does not equate to consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming tendentious on your part. You already used the vandalism line and I already refuted it. I do not have to show anything. The 5% threshold is the presumed consensus. You have the burden to change consensus and until you do your change will be reverted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You only have to show things you cite. You're using a selective interpretation of the only guideline you've produced that has since been refuted. You will be reverted as long as you cite policies and consensus that do not exist. I agree that we should establish consensus because there is none. Please produce something concrete that says there is one, or stop citing it. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a presumed consensus and that is the status quo. If you cannot establish a consensus then the status quo remains. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no established consensus. Perhaps no one paid much attention. That does not mean I should not attempt to make the article better. MavsFan28 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
First, you're not making it better. You're making it inconsistent and thus worse. In addition, you have no basis to revert. From Wikipedia:Reverting: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I am. I support the infobox serving a historical purpose of illustrating the main contenders for the nomination, or including every candidate featured in major polls. I do no support the current baseless method that puts in candidates who simply got votes by not dropping out. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you recognize what the status quo is? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you recognized what the consensus is? MavsFan28 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The presumed consensus is the status quo. Do you know what is the status quo? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


Yes. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
And what is it? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Leave Paul alone

Paul is in the infobox again. Read the other chapters(talks)of Paul before deleting it againGhostmen2 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential primaries/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The presidential primary chart has some errors doesn't it? Cross-checking U For Prez ( www.u4prez.com), shows Louisiana voting on 9 Feb, not 22 Jan. And how about Hawaii? Felix01 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is Mitt before Huckabee in the infobox?

Huckabee got more delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalteringArc2 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_1&oldid=1083935788"