Talk:2012 United States presidential election in Maine

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Maine Mid‑importance

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

2012 Maine Republican caucuses

How does something last for a week? Can you really vote for longer then one day? Do most vote of the first day? Last day? or when ever they feel like it? Why do they allow this. I really hate this idea that you can vote for a whole week. Anyone with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how it works, you can't just "go in and vote whenever." You have to meet at your specific caucus location at a specific time based on when YOUR precinct votes. Each caucus location chooses when they want to go within that week, but it's typically a 1 to 2 hour time period on a single day.

I had added a more detailed account about the dates and someone deleted it i don't know why. I think The green papers and quite reliable but if someone think otherwise i hope writes here why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.163 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Town results

[1]--Metallurgist (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at results in this (official) PDF you may notice that for some municipalities the candidates' votes do not add up to the total. File downloaded on 2012-02-16 at 12:00 UTC.

Caucus		Votes
County	Municipality	Romney	Paul	Santorum	Gingrich	Other	Total
County	Municipality	Romney	Paul	Santorum	Gingrich	Other	Claimed	Real
Cumberland	Gorham	24	23	8	4	0	56	59
Cumberland	South Portland	29	28	19	9	0	81	85
Kennebec	Augusta	18	17	3	0	0	40	38
Knox	Camden	19	6	2	5	0	28	32
Knox	Friendship	2	2	3	1	0	7	8
Penobscot	Alton	0	2	0	0	1	0	3
	Bangor	26	36	9	4	2	0	77
	Dixmont	1	0	1	0	1	4	3
	Newport	9	6	6	1	0	21	22
Somerset	Cambridge	0	0	5	3	1	8	9
York	Eliot	20	12	3	6	2	44	43
York	Kennebunk	29	5	11	2	0	45	47

193.84.186.81 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you sum up these incorrect subtotals, you only get 5493 total votes. You do get 5585 (the official total) though if you sum up the real subtotals. - 193.84.186.81 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the new results some of these inconsistencies remain. - 81.200.56.13 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Paul is apparently not going to ask for a recount.[2] Location (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they are recounting anyway.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Maine GOP is going to "update the vote tally", but will not being doing a recount since there are no actual ballots to recount.[3] What a fiasco. Location (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Webster says results went to SPAM folder.[4] Location (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this large enough to be mentioned here: Maine Republican Party#Controversies? Location (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock County flips to Paul

Map should be recolored: Ron Paul scores win in Hancock, Washington County voting as state nears end of GOP caucuses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.239.237 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rome and Danforth

From the AP story in The Portland Press Herald, one can reasonably infer the following totals for Danforth, a town in far northern Washington County which held its own caucus on Feb. 18th, separate for the one held in East Machias for uncaucused towns in the rest of the county:

candidate	vote
Danforth
(Washington Co.)
Romney	6
Paul	4
Santorum	2
Gingrich	1

The only source I could find quickly for Rome's caucus on Thursday, Feb. 16, was a posting in The Daily Paul, an unofficial but public blog for supporters of Dr. Paul. Seven people voted in someone's living room, so sources are likely to be a bit informal.

candidate	vote
Rome
(Kennebec Co.)
Romney	1
Paul	3
Santorum	2
Gingrich	1

There are really two totals that readers are likely to be interested in, (1) the unofficial totals from every Maine caucus that voted on presidential preferences, and (2) the official totals which the Maine Republican Party accepted only for those caucuses voting on presidential preferences between Saturday, Feb. 4 and Saturday, Feb. 11, as adjusted for the Washington County caucuses postponed until Feb. 18 by the Feb. 11 snowstorm, as well as any other variances the full Central Committee of Maine's Republican Party will accept at its meeting on Saturday, March 10. (Current releases are from the Party's chairman or Executive Committee, presumably following decisions of the Central Committee, state convention or party referendum, if any.) For the first, the totals I get from adding the Rome and Danforth results above to what seems to be the most comprehensive, consistent and recent summary, The Bangor Daily News’ spreadsheet, I get the following unofficial totals before Castine (Hancock County, 2000 pop. 1,343) votes on Saturday, March 3:

candidate	vote	%
Maine
unofficial preliminary totals
Romney	2,381	38.0%
Paul	2,264	36.1%
Santorum	1,138	18.2%
Gingrich	406	6.5%
undecided	61	1.0%
others	13	0.2%
Total	6,263	100.0%

I haven't entered any of this on the article page, because there are enough questions that can be reasonably debated, such as timing, official vs unofficial returns, reliable sources and original research or synthesis (a degree of which is inevitable in most good election articles on Wikipedia, since individual, undigested news reports and official reports can often be incomplete or misleading). What do other editors (especially those who've worked longer on this page) think? —— Shakescene (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tally in the above spreadsheet is not yet the official tally of the Maine GOP, so I think we should wait until they do release the official results... which may not occur until March 10. Given the clusterf*** that the GOP created in the previous week, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Location (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated Rome, Danforth and Castine (March 3) into a "post-Feb. 11" section, without (as yet) attempting to aggregate any new totals. Things might be a little clearer, unless I've overlooked something or made a mistake. References, as always, don't necessarily need re-formatting for style, but they never lose anything from being rechecked, verified, tightened and supported with backup sources. When the dust has settled, the "controversy" and other tentative present-oriented sections could probably benefit from updating, revision and recasting into a consistent chronology (e.g. "was expected to..", "stated that ... will [not] ...") This is a problem with nearly all election articles that are written as the campaign's various stages are progressing. It's often hard after someone's elected or defeated to chase down something anticipated or announced in an earlier day-to-day news story or press release. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good way to handle it for now. Looks good! Location (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —— Shakescene (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official results from Maine GOP

I have reverted the table to reflect the official results supplied by the Maine GOP on February 17th. There is still some question as to whether the results from the February 18th caucus will actually count and the tallies given in the unattributed contactcontact.com table do not match the media reports[5]. Location (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Is it really necessary to have a half dozen sets of results? The most we need is the official February 11 release, maybe the corrected release, and the final release.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this is resolved (hopefully very soon after the March 10 Maine GOP Central Committee meeting), we won't need those individual caucus returns. But right now, it seems best to let readers see the elements without offering judgements about whether one or the other should be added to the total (this is why I didn't include a total line in the original table). There's enough general interest and those individual caucuses are a little hard to look up otherwise; I know of no single table elsewhere that includes all those six caucuses. One common source of confusion has been between the East Machias caucus covering most of Washington County and the overall county totals that include another caucus that day in Danforth. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a column to the main results table that shows the percentages for the original Feb. 11 tally, so they can be more easily compared with the Feb. 18 percentages. Dbrisinda (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feb. 24 count

User:Bielsko added the post-Feb. 11 results so far to the Feb. 17 officially revised count, for a total of about 6,250 votes (with corresponding percentages). As discussed above on this Talk page, such unofficial totals (like ones I've calculated for myself) are really premature, since we won't know which ones will be accepted by the State Central Committee until March 10 (Washington County very likely, since the Maine GOP Executive Committee has recommended doing so because of the snowstorm, but others not so clear). Although this will no doubt be disputed, the place for such hypothetical or provisional aggregates would be somewhere else in the article. Wikipedia can't take sides in such matters, because it's nonpartisan (I'm not a Republican) and some casual readers mistakenly treat it and cite it as some kind of Authority. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 10 Central Committee meeting

The Executive Committee of the Maine GOP recommended that the full State Central Committee meeting on March 10th approve adding the postponed Washington County caucus results to the statewide straw poll returns. On February 24, revised totals including Washington County, Hancock County and other Feb. 18 results (but not Rome on Feb. 16 or Castine on March 3) were posted on the Maine GOP web site. I have no idea what their status might be. The State Central Committee did meet on Saturday, March 10, and approved, after a vocal debate, Charlie Webster's continuance as state chairman. But the one news report I've seen (from The Bangor Daily News) didn't mention caucus results, nor have I seen any other references (nor any news on the Maine GOP web site). Does anyone know what happened? Was there an earlier meeting of the Central Committee or were they polled electronically before the Feb. 24 revisions were posted on the state party's web site? Did they act on the straw poll on March 10? Is this still an unresolved open matter? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new supers

Do the new supers get to vote in this one? I know in Alaska and Nevada, word on the street is that they dont.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. See this May 6th report in the Maine Sunday Telegram, which lists all 24 delegates. The outgoing but still current National Committeeman and woman, Rick Bennett and Jan Staples, both committed to Romney, get to vote in Tampa as superdelegates, as does current State Party Chairman Charlie Webster (uncommitted). The incoming National Committeewoman and man were apparently elected by the Ron Paul-dominated state convention, and have pledged to Dr Paul, but they're not among the three ex-officio superdelegates that each state and territory gets over and above the competitive delegate-selection process. "The convention elected Mark Willis as committeeman and Ashley Ryan as committeewoman, but they won’t assume those offices until after the convention. However, they will attend the convention as elected Ron Paul delegates." —— Shakescene (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Maine has swung to Ron Paul, mainly . . .

Green Papers [6] has 1 delegate uncommitted, 2 for Romney, and 21 for Paul. Does someone want to change the table? Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have informations delegate by delegate: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html The source says that Paul receives 20 delegates, Romney 2 and 2 are uncommitted. We should leave it as is, I think. Bielsko (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo says its 21. Im not sure which to go with, but Ill read that article.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

I've removed this section because it is starting to be a WP:COATRACK issue since it's starting to have no relevance to the election itself since it already has passed and the results have already been announced. I do not see how this section improves the article nor does it have any bearing in the future. Please discuss here first explaining why you think it would improve on the article itself. ViriiK (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election in Maine, 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]