2012 Republican Delegate Count
The Republicans have allocated 2,286 Delegates. A candidate must secure 1,144 to win the party nomination. These numbers are best estimate at this time. Click here to view the Republican 2008 Delegate Count.
***For questions about delegates assigned from states that have yet to vote, see comments section below…
look for Payton (Feb 8.) and see reply to comment…***
also see Republican Delegate Count, Counting
There are other sites that are reporting numbers in other ranges here is the count that The Green Papers have (soft count):
- Romney 683
- Santorum 253
- Paul 63
- Gingrich 145
Tea Party Cheer Estimated Count
| Date | State | Total | Gingrich | Huntsman | Paul | Romney | Santorum | UNassigned | ||
| TOTAL | 2,286 | 136 | 1 | 63 | 685 | 262 | 1,139 | |||
| Percent of Delegates | 100% | 5.95% | 0.04% | 2.76% | 29.97% | 11.46% | 49.83% | |||
| Percent of the needed 1144 | 11.89% | 0.09% | 5.51% | 59.88% | 22.90% | |||||
| 3-Jan | Iowa | 28 | 1 | 13 | 13 | 1 | ||||
| SEE NOTES | C | |||||||||
| 10-Jan | New Hampshire | 12 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0 | ||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 24-Jan | South Carolina | 25 | 23 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 31-Jan | Florida | 50 | 50 | 0 | ||||||
| W* | ||||||||||
| 4-Feb | Nevada | 28 | 6 | 5 | 14 | 3 | 0 | |||
| C | ||||||||||
| 7-Feb | Colorado | 36 | 3 | 13 | 6 | 14 | ||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 7-Feb | Minnesota | 40 | 1 | 9 | 28 | 2 | ||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 7-Feb | Missouri | 52 | 52 | |||||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 11-Feb | Maine | 24 | 10 | 12 | 2 | |||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 28-Feb | Arizona | 29 | 29 | 0 | ||||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 28-Feb | Michigan | 30 | 16 | 14 | 0 | |||||
| WD2SP | ||||||||||
| 3-Mar | Washington | 43 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| B | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Alaska | 27 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 3 | |||
| W | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Georgia | 76 | 52 | 21 | 3 | 0 | ||||
| WD2SP | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Idaho | 32 | 32 | 0 | ||||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Massachusetts | 41 | 41 | 0 | ||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | North Dakota | 28 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 0 | |||
| C | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Ohio | 66 | 1 | 36 | 19 | 10 | ||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Oklahoma | 43 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 3 | ||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Tennessee | 58 | 9 | 17 | 29 | 3 | ||||
| WMDSP | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Vermont | 17 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 0 | ||||
| WDSP | ||||||||||
| 6-Mar | Virginia | 49 | 3 | 43 | 3 | |||||
| WDSP | ||||||||||
| 10-Mar | Guam | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 10-Mar | Kansas | 40 | 7 | 33 | 0 | |||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 10-Mar | Northern Marianas | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 10-Mar | Virgin Islands | 9 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 10-Mar | Wyoming | 29 | 1 | 23 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 13-Mar | Alabama | 50 | 13 | 12 | 23 | 2 | ||||
| WD2SP | ||||||||||
| 13-Mar | American Samoa | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 13-Mar | Hawaii | 20 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| C | ||||||||||
| 13-Mar | Mississippi | 40 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 1 | ||||
| WDSP | ||||||||||
| 18-Mar | Puerto Rico | 23 | 1 | 22 | 0 | |||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 20-Mar | Illinois | 69 | 43 | 10 | 16 | |||||
| L | ||||||||||
| 24-Mar | Louisiana | 46 | 5 | 10 | 31 | |||||
| PC | ||||||||||
| 3-Apr | District of Columbia | 19 | 18 | 1 | ||||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 3-Apr | Maryland | 37 | 37 | 0 | ||||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 3-Apr | Wisconsin | 42 | 33 | 9 | 0 | |||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 24-Apr | Connecticut | 28 | 28 | |||||||
| WDSP | ||||||||||
| 24-Apr | Delaware | 17 | 17 | |||||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 24-Apr | New York | 95 | 1 | 94 | ||||||
| WMDSP | ||||||||||
| 24-Apr | Pennsylvania | 72 | 2 | 70 | ||||||
| L | ||||||||||
| 24-Apr | Rhode Island | 19 | 3 | 16 | ||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 8-May | Indiana | 46 | 1 | 45 | ||||||
| WDC | ||||||||||
| 8-May | North Carolina | 55 | 55 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 8-May | West Virginia | 31 | 2 | 29 | ||||||
| WDC | ||||||||||
| 15-May | Nebraska | 35 | 1 | 1 | 33 | |||||
| A | ||||||||||
| 15-May | Oregon | 28 | 28 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 22-May | Arkansas | 36 | 36 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 22-May | Kentucky | 45 | 45 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 29-May | Texas | 155 | 155 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 5-Jun | California | 172 | 1 | 171 | ||||||
| WDS | ||||||||||
| 5-Jun | Montana | 26 | 1 | 25 | ||||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 5-Jun | New Jersey | 50 | 50 | |||||||
| W | ||||||||||
| 5-Jun | New Mexico | 23 | 23 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 5-Jun | South Dakota | 28 | 28 | |||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| 26-Jun | Utah | 40 | 40 | |||||||
| W |
NOTES:
A code is under the name of each state. Use below to help determine what process is used to elect delegates.
P: Is a Proportional Primary
C: Is a Caucus and/or Convention
W: Is a Winner-Take-All
W*: Is a Winner-Take-All but because of rules may end up being Proportional.
WDS: Is a Winner-Take-All of the Congressional District and Statewide
WD2SP: Is a Winner-Take-All of the Congressional District unless the top vote getter is less than 50%+1 vote, if that is the case the top 2 vote getters split the delegates. Statewide delegates are proportional.
WMDSP: Winner must receive a majority in a district for winner-take-all, otherwise it is proportional. Statewide is winner-take-all.
WDSP: Winner must receive a majority Statewide for winner-take-all, otherwise it is proportional. District are winner-take-all.
WDC: Combo Selection, Winner-Take-All Primary for District Delegates plus Caucus/Convention
PC: Combo Selection, Proportional Primary plus Caucus/Convention
B: Winner-Take-All Primary by CD, Proportional Primary (statewide), Caucus/Convention (statewide)
A: Advisory Primary
L: Loophole Primary
could you designate, in your table, which primaries are proportional and which are winner-takes-all
The 5 delegates in New Hampshire that are unassigned, I believe is to be at 0. All 12 delegates were accounted for. Unless I’m mistaking.I was just a little confused when I saw the 5 unassigned delegates in New Hampshire when all 12 delegates were distributed.
By the way, I also don’t understand why CNN and FOX report different numbers for the delegate count. I completely understand and agree with your 2012 Republican Delegate Count which, seems more accurate. I wish your 2012 Republican Delegate Count was televised to get the mass of the US population to know the real count.
Respectfully,
Samuel
RON PAUL HAS ALMOST EVERY DELEGATE IN MISSOURI TOO but they are showing all 52 as “unassigned” ????????????????????? WHY IS IT THAT WHEN RON PAUL WINS WE NEVER GET THE TRUTH —— YOU CAN ONLY TRY TO “HIDE” HIS SUPPORT FOR SO LONG ——— THIS “RON PAUL THING” IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE — RON PAUL 2012
Thanks for your delegate distribution designations!
don’t thank them because there numbers are all wrong. Ron Paul has many more delegates than this fake tea party site is showing. As a long time tea party member and Republican I know that Ron Paul is the only tea party candidate
RIGHT KEVIN — MANY MORE. RON PAUL 2012.
Why so much change in Iowa from 3 weeks ago? 3 weeks later it now seems as though the numbers Fox and CNN reported are the same this site is now reporting. Did the numbers change?
Election night numbers are not certified. They are a raw total. The Iowa popular vote was just certified. Also, their “delegate” numbers may yet still change. Those numbers are estimated. Each state party has a process that they go though to determine the numbers of delegates, including lost delegates for having a primary/caucus to soon.
Delegate numbers may change but should not change that much.
Sitting in Iowa as a Republican with many caucus experiences, I can tell you that the Iowa delegation that ultimately emerges from the state convention has little if anything to do with the caucus straw poll result. As a rule, the national campaigns make little effort to influence the selection of either the county convention delegates or the state convention delegates. It has been known for this to occur, I have seen it once in 28 years in my county. I have also seen county conventions dump the nominated state convention delegation from the county for being insufficiently conservative. Should the primary process prove decisive before the Iowa State Republican Convention,in mid-June, the national delegation will be its usual mix of party leaders and hacks, and it will loyally fall into line behind the nominee, whoever it is. Should, on the other hand, the race go down to the convention, all bets are off, and the actual state convention could be interesting for the first time in years. In that case I would expect to see a sustained evangelical effort to ensure that Romney gets not one delegate, and that anyone standing in the way will get paved, and I would expect that effort to be successful. It may come as a protest in any event.
My point, and I do have one, is that notwithstanding anything the best and brightest in the media are saying, the Iowa numbers should, at this point be entirely uncommitted. To list any delegates out of Iowa for anyone is simply wrong.
You are right. I am a delegate in my county in Ga and we were told that we will also get more delegates over all because of the two states (Florida and Arizona) that broke rules on when they could hold their caucus. We also have to back the candidate with the most votes but if they do not get a certain percent on the first vote, then all bets are off and the delegates can vote however they want. There are many rules that are confusing, but my understanding is that it is likely that in this election there will be more than one vote and the delegates will end up able to vote for who they want.
Part of me wants to see Newt Gingrich stay in the primary race while Mitt Romney pounds him over and over again until Newt is completely out of money, including wifey 3′s piggy bank. He’ll be raving and shouting “unfair” until the very end while Mitt is taking it to Obama in the general.
I thought the RNC rules didn’t allow a state to award all delegates to the winner until April 1?
They lose delegates if they bind them early. There are exceptions for a few states.
Why are delegates awarded from states that haven’t yet had their primaries or caucuses?
See Payton (Feb 8.) below…
Another question. What happens with the UNassigned delegates? Are they free to vote for whomever they want at the convention?
“UNassigned” delegates in States that have not voted are not yet bound. The National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, and the State Chair (Party Leaders) are not always bound. Thus, if a State has 100 delegates, is a “Winner Take All” 97 delegates are bound. The remaining 3 are “UNassigned” unless a State rule requires they vote with the 97 or they commit to a candidate.
In Minnesota, where they voted yesterday, you could arrive at an estimated number of assignable delegates. However that number will most likely change due to the way the caucus is structured.
The Delegate numbers will ebb and flow into March, April at the latest. At that time the Republicans should have a two-man race and the votes will begin to fall to the likely nominee.
If you bet on politics, I have been told the earlier indicator is to watch the “Party Leaders.”
Your delegate count generally agrees with that of Fox News/WSJ delegate totals for the Republican presidential contenders. Unfortunately, those totals appear to be in error.
As of 6 February, the WSJ lists the Republican Presidential Delegate Count as:
Romney – 101
Gingrich – 32
Santorum – 17
Paul – 9
Huntsman-2
This totals 161, but the total of the delegates of the states that have held primaries or caucuses thus far – Iowa (28), New Hampshire (12), South Carolina (25), Florida (50), and Nevada (28) – is only 143. The New York Times, I’m sorry to say, is reporting the correct delegate count:
Mitt Romney – 85
Newt Gingrich – 29
Rick Santorum – 16
Ron Paul – 8
Jon Huntsman – 2
Unallocated – 3
Since only 143 delegates have thus far (as of 6 Feb) been allocated, and you report 161, you better check your numbers.
See Payton (Feb 8.) below…
These delegate counts are not correct at all because they haven’t even been awarded!I can’t believe the press is doing these counts because they are ALL bogus if you at least know how the system works this year which the GOP changed.Wait until the delegates meet and a lot of people are going to be blown away at the real count!
Except Paul has more than 9. Most people keep their website updated…don’t post false information just because you don’t like Paul. Your numbers seem to be from wikipedia, which obviously hasn’t been updated in a while now. Uhm, fail?
We are using several sources for the delegate count. AP for example interviews those delegates that are automatic and not assigned (unbound) as they report on their choice for President, we add those in the respective column. AP is the only source that we use in counting that we are not requiring a second source; because of the past accuracy with unbound delegate counts.
We are checking delegate counts two times daily on non-voting days. On days when a vote is underway delegate counts are checked about every 30 minutes to an hour. At 3 p.m. Eastern time today, the New York Times is only showing 8 votes for Paul. WSJ has 9 and Real Clear Politics is showing 13. Real Clear has given 4 delegates to Paul that the WSJ has given to Santorum. Minnesota has yet to report 100% of precincts.
In the Arizona debate, Ron Paul state he has the 2nd most delegates of the group. John King nor any of the other candidates challenged him on that. Somebody is wrong.
Up to now I’ve been using the delegate counts from the RealClearPolitics website to update my own spreadsheet. Currently per Feb. 9, 2012, they have a total of 32 for Gingrich, 13 for Paul, 90 for Romney and 44 for Santorum. Naturally when I compare the numbers to other sources there are significant differences, sometimes favoring a certain candidate and sometimes not. I want my spreadsheet to reflect as close as possible these issues which you have discussed above. In the ensuing weeks, would you say that I’d be better off using your numbers?
Ron Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions. The other candidates are playing to so many other special interests, that they will not accomplish anything other than enriching themselves and feeding their ego.
what do you have to say about this? (A link to a video was included in this comment. We have moved the link to this page, Republican Delegate Count, Counting. We have also offered our Reply first and the video is linked at the bottom of the page. Thank you, John, TeaPartyCheer)
Ron Paul is in second place but way to go fake tea party website. check out youtube it is one of the last places the establishment has not gotten thier hand on.
Kevin I would suggest that you read “bob,” the comment directly above you, and follow the link. The video at the bottom of the linked page is one that he sent.
Once again: WE EXPECT THE COUNT TO CHANGE, that is why it was qualified as “best estimate at this time.” HOWEVER: until changes are reported we will use numbers that are based on the way that voters voted when they meet for the first vote, even though they were non-binding. We will change those counts only when the actual delegates are chosen and it becomes know who they are supporting.
We had assumed that the word “estimate” would explain the vote count. When we replied to “bob” a few days ago we did add bold, italics, and underlining to the word “estimate” in an attempt to make it stand out.
I did view the video in bob’s link — just exactly how many delegates can be for Paul even though the caucus voted very differently? Are all caucuses unbound? I think if Paul has not “won” primaries or caucuses by getting the most votes, and then uses unbound delegates to vote for him way more than the popular vote warrants, while it may be legal, it will not sit well with Republicans who voted for those other candidates. I think he will be shooting himself in the foot. If he’s planning to use it for bargaining power, that’s going to have the impression of blackmail because his delegate votes won’t reflect the popular vote. I think he’d better rethink this strategy.
It seems to work for Mitt.Ron Paul won the most voters in the Virgin Islands,but due to some strategy,Mitt ended up with almost all the delegates.What we need is true voting reform.Most people do not vote,because the system is so corrupt.Voter fraud has been rumored in every State thus far,and proven possible in two States by O’Keefe.American citizens should get 100% of the voting power.No judiciary or electoral.No one who works for the Federal government should be allowed to vote,except soldiers.I don’t think people who work for the county should be allowed to vote in county elections either.I think this country is in serious trouble and I would do anything to save it,even use the current system against itself,but never cheat.
Why is it that EVERY website has different totals of delegates ?
Texas has been moved to the end of May — May 29.