Talk:2012 United States presidential election in Iowa

Roemer & Cain

31 votes. --Dezidor (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And 58 votes were cast for Herman Cain. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegates

The caucuses last night selected delegates to the state convention, not the national convention. National convention delegates will be selected at the state convention. No delegates were at stake last night. XINOPH | TALK 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

However, there are projections if nothing changes. Delegates usually stick with the Iowa citizen voting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

County Results

Due to the close proximity of the election, a county results list may help people better understand who won where. Give me the go ahead and I'll get started. 98.198.157.78 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I lightly support this, but maybe on a subpage.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Map

The blue and purple in the county map are too close in shade.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Black on map?

What does the black on the county map represent?--74.167.7.205 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tie between Santorum and Paul S51438 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No delegates for Ron Paul?

I know that the Associated Press is a reliable source and a Jan 4 AP wire says 13 for Romney, 12 for Santorum, and zero for the rest but I think it's fair to say the sources are not unanimous about this. This is the sort of situation were some informed argument here about how the delegate assignment should work could help us choose which source to run with on this. This source seems to be an informed one.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That source is a blog, we have to go with established RSs. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over delegates

CNN is reporting different delegate results than whatever source we are using. They have Romney, Santorum, and Paul with 7, Perry and Gingrich with 2.

I also noticed an error in this paragraph.

"A January 4 AP analysis projected that Romney and Santorum, who each won two of Iowa's congressional districts, would win 13 and 12 delegates, respectively, assuming there are no changes in their support as the campaign continues. Although Paul ran a close third in the voting, he "was shut out of delegates because he didn't win any of Iowa's four congressional districts."

This is factually incorrect as Iowa has five congressional districts until January 2013. See Iowa's 5th congressional district. 98.198.157.78 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does make sense. Consider: Iowa's congressional primaries will be based on the four congressional districts (the primary prepares for the general, which prepares for January 2013), so it would make sense that its caucuses/conventions would as well. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote typo -- Santorum wins?

I noticed that posted today (Jan. 5, 2012) in local Des Moines news station, KCCI, a vote-counter at one Iowa's precincts says that his precinct should have cast two (2) votes for Romney, but the Iowa Republican Party's website shows 22. A 20-vote discrepancy would give Santorum the win. He hopes it's a typo. The Party has yet to respond, tonight. Perhaps this should be added to the article? -- Masamunecyrus^(talk)_(contribs) 04:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged with Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012?

Article Pictures and Other Content

The 2010 picture of former hopeful Mike Huckabee should be replaced with a meaningful 2012 picture, IMHO. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) . . . in my humble opinion.

The set of portrait pictures of the six 2012 candidates is excellent; as is the graphic of Iowa districts! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Victory margin as a percentage

You can make steady money in the long run by betting that any given news story that contains a percentage has got it wrong, and there are loads of different variations out there on this one.

(30015⁄30007-1)×100 = 0.026..., i.e. greater than 2⁄100th but less than 3⁄100th of a percent.

I propose changing "less than 1⁄100th of a percent" to "less than 3⁄100th of a percent" in the first paragraph.

Nat (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Their individual percentages of the entire popular vote are within 1⁄100th of each other. I believe the statement of "less than 1⁄100th of a percent" to be statistically accurate. The results (according to Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012) are 30015⁄122255x100 = 24.5511% for Romney and 30007⁄122255x100 = 24.5446% for Santorum. The difference is 0.0065%, which is less than 0.01%. IrishCowboy (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that the votes are close enough so that the two top candidates would presumably receive the same number of delegates at the upcoming Iowa conventions, regardless of who received the largest number.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Counting Errors

The section on the comments by Nate Silver should be clarified. From the article: "Silver also pointed out that one precinct in Appanoose County, Pleasant Franklin, reported no turnout at all, although it was listed as a valid caucus site and 132 voters cast ballots for John McCain in the 2008 general election there. Pleasant Franklin was one of eight precincts throughout that state that were listed by the state party but were reported as having no Republican turnout" It doesn't specify if the lack of turnout was from the 2012 primary or the 2008 primary, or how the 2008 primary relates to the 2012 one in the precinct. Is there a dispute over whether the eight precincts did or did not have voter turnout in the 2012 primary? Leastdream (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo

Hunt

Jon Huntsman is not included in the template on the right. Is this an error, or am I mistaken otherwise? 71.146.10.10 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jon Huntsman is not running to be the POTUS. Travürsa (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Section

The image in the section of final debates is misplaced. I don't know which image replacement is acceptable. 71.146.10.10 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum Wins

I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but according to CNN and other sources, it has been decided that Rick Santorum won the state. Clearly the page should be edited to reflect this, I just don't know how.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.232.248 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Backed up by: http://iowacaucus.com/2012/01/19/no-official-iowa-caucus-winner-but-santorum-got-most-votes/ (misleading title, article states "UPDATE: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum will be listed in Republican Party of Iowa records as the winner of the party’s 2012 precinct caucuses, but his 34-vote victory over GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney will be accompanied by an asterisk.") Travürsa (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, is the map of the counties still accurate? It was created before the certified results came out. Did the certified results change top positions in any of the counties as compared to the initial results? --89.27.8.236 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On the 19th, commons:User:Gage updated the map to have the certified results. You can compare the two versions in the "File history" section of commons:File:Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses Election Results by County, 2012.svg. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Or Paul?

What is all this?

• "Ron Paul Wins Iowa 16 Weeks Later; Supporters Remind of Tenth Ballot Harding Win" (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/30142)
• "Paul backers' election to state GOP committee sends message" (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120422/NEWS09/304220055/Paul-backers-election-to-state-GOP-committee-sends-message?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews)
• "Ron Paul wins Iowa. And Minnesota. And might win Colorado." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/125132132)

It seems Paul has -- or might have -- come up with the plurality of delegates even though he was only third in the percentage of "votes" state-wide. Kdammers (talk)

Why was the See Also section removed ?

Is there a reason the 'See also' section no longer appears? I had added an item. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say for sure why it iwas removed, but I'm guessing it' may have been because all of the listed articles were already linked in the main text of the article. "See also: sections are just of articles that are not linked elsewhere. WP:See also  Will Beback  talk  05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidates info box

It seems a bit pointless to list their party as they're all Republicans running as Republicans in a Republican caucus. JDC808 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the lines and the pictures also disappeared — guess I failed in understanding. Also, the other two pictures in the Article are dated from 2011 and 2010. Mike Huckabee was not prominent in the 2012 race. Michele Bachmann is good to show, but why not a 2012 caption? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

dead link, here's a live one, still very out-of-date

The AP article "Romney edges Santorum in race for Iowa delegates" is a dead link. A live version of the article is here: http://www.kmov.com/home/GOP-Romney-beats-Santorum-by-8-votes-136643648.html

This article is from before the counts were "updated" enough to reveal a non-Romney winner. I recommend updating the link. I then recommend finding a new AP source for each of these notes, if they are still support by any source at all. 50.132.91.194 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting link you could consider: The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary". — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States presidential election in Iowa, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111102094158/http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/08/14/us-pawlenty-presidency.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/08/14/us-pawlenty-presidency.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020033130/http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-21/rick-santorum-is-declared-winner-of-iowa-caucuses-by-state-party-leaders to http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-21/rick-santorum-is-declared-winner-of-iowa-caucuses-by-state-party-leaders

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• America Symbol.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)