What is the Actual Delegate Count? (Vanity)

Vanity | April 1, 2016 | Bubba_Leroy

[Bubba_Leroy]

This is my first Vanity post in over 16 years as a Freeper, so cut me some slack.

Google, Bloomberg, Washington Post, Fox News and USA Today all say that Trump now has 736 delegates and Cruz has 463.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=republican+primaries+results

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-primaries/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-primary-caucus-results

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/#/

NYT says that Trump has 735 and Cruz has 461.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

Here on FreeRepublic, I have seen posts with delegate counts all over the board.

Can anyone point me to a definitive site with the actual delegate counts (and not sites that you like best or that show what you want the count to be)?

[Bubba_Leroy]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is as good as any and may be better than most, but I don’t know that it is any more definitive or accurate than the varying estimates on any of the national media websites.

[DoughtyOne]

Poor Bubba_Leroy won’t want to view that. It’s only one delegate different than the WikiPedia information I sourced above.

[Iowa David]

Here is what matters
No one has 1237

[SunkenCiv]

---

If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States? Who would be your first choice for Donald Trump's running mate?

---

[Bubba_Leroy]

I am not saying that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong. But seriously, dude. Wikipedia?

Anyone can post anything they want on Wikipedia (unless they want to correct any of the Global Warming articles, because those are locked down by far left wing “moderators”).

So far on this thread alone, people have posted sites showing Trump’s delegate count ranging from 736 to 752 and Cruz’s delegate count ranging from 463 to 466. I have no idea which, if any, are correct (even Wikipedia). That’s why I am asking.

[Robert DeLong]

Good site, thanks for posting.

[freepersup]

Correct me if I’m wrong- the 1,237 delegates is based on the temporary rules set in 2012, and set to expire prior to the 2016 Rules Committee convening, and- they either keep this rule or threshold, or set a different one.

What was the threshold of delegates for 2008?

2004?

2000?

1996?

1992?

1988?

1984?

1980?

1976?

[Jim W N]

FHQ: 751
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html

RCP: 673
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html

Green Papers: 752
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-HS.phtml

FiveThirtyEight: 752
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

[LostPassword]

Not so bad that the GOPe has to change the rules from “majority of delegates” to “super-majority of delegates”.

If Trump is likely to get 1237 they’ll need that rule change. And it makes sense - how can anyone without a super-majority of republican voters possibly win a general election? Better to pick someone who didn’t even run in the primaries since they may get 100% republican votes.

[Bubba_Leroy]

I think the threshold has always been more than 50% of however many delegates there are.

What changes from year to year is the total number of delegates, the minimum number of states you have to win to be eligible to be nominated (”Rule 40”), and the rules for getting delegates in each state.

The total number of delegates and the rules for getting delegates in each state were set before the elections started. The rules on who is eligible to be nominated can be changed before the convention.

[Jim W N]

Correction:

RCP: 736
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

[Bubba_Leroy]

FHQ: 751
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html

Green Papers: 752
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-HS.phtml

FiveThirtyEight: 752
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

... and

NYT: 735
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

Electoral-vote.com: 736
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

USA Today: 736
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/#/

Fox News: 736
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-primary-caucus-results

Washington Post: 736
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-primaries/

Bloomberg: 736
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

Google: 736
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=republican+primaries+results&eob=m.09c7w0/R/4/short/m.09c7w0/

Wikipedia: 752
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

This is the problem. No matter what number you want it to be, you can find a delegate count that you like.

[Mysonsrdoctors]

Yes. Real clear politics has not given the Missouri delegates to trump.

[huldah1776]

Soros bailed out DDT a couple of times.

[Jim W N]

Well, first of all I agree with you, I wouldn’t go with Wikipedia where anyone can put something in there. I avoid using Wiki for sources because it is so unreliable.

Secondly, I tend to think the source sites that I referenced are more reliable than the networks which will use the variances for their own purposes. The sites will probably do the same thing somewhat but at least you’re getting more raw data and a total picture to validate what they’re saying.

To me, it looks like Trump probably has 752 based on what two out of the four agree on.

[Red Steel]

If you rely on the NYT, FOX, WAPO... or any of these “I hate Trump chumps” they will under count Trump’s delegates on purpose.

The number for Trump is 752.

[Seruzawa]

Who is trying to ruin all this great flaming on the FR by trying to interject some hard data? Sheesh. There’s too much fun in unsupported accusations and wild hyperbole to waste any time with facts.

[LS]

The best count is at Five Thirty Eight, and they have 754 for Trump... But still don’t appear to have included the 12 released and awarded MO delegates, which would make it 766.

[wtd]

Here is what matters...No one has 1237 - Iowa David

Now, imagine if Cruz and Rubio were to recognize how badly they are being used by the GOPe/RNC to undermine this election in favor of Chamber of Commerce, Muslim Brotherhood, ingrate foreign interests etc.- And if they would decide to kick the establishment to the curb by combining efforts with Trump by making a deal which makes best use of each of their individual strengths...

• Rubio = 171
• Cruz = 463
• Trump = 736

  Total 1,370 Establishment efforts to thwart the will of the people could all be moot.

[Pollster1]

Actually, no. There is no correct count.

Jeb’s 4 delegates (nice return on investment, Jeb!) are unbound because he dropped out. Do you want the site that assigns them to Jeb even though they are no longer bound (or permitted) to vote for Jeb? Do you want the site that assigns them where they have pledged to vote? Do you want a site that pretends they do not exist?

What about Rubio’s 170+ delegates? They are both bound to vote for Rubio because they are bound by their state rules and forbidden because he does not have a majority of delegates in eight or more states. They are free to vote at will because Rubio dropped out, but Rubio rescinded the decision to drop out. The rules do not say whether Rubio can reverse his decision. So, are they Rubio delegates, Cruz delegates (some of them), Trump delegates (some of them), uncommitted? Do they not count at all? Some were unbound delegates who declared for Rubio before he dropped out. Do they still count as Rubio, or do they count elsewhere or not at all?

There is no accurate count because the rules are a little vague around the edges. That is where the variation comes, and no one (not even Trump and Cruz) really knows where the bound/declared but no longer bound candidates will stand on the first round ballot.