How Ron Paul Wins the Nomination: A break-down of delegates and a brokered convention

The only way that Paul goes to the White House is if he takes the valet parking job.

 

All joking aside, Paul is gaining delegates at the Precinct and County level, we'll see what happen at the State Conventions. As long as we are on the ballot at the National Convention and no one has secured the 1,144 delegate votes required to win, we have a chance.

If we pull off the Nomination, we just need to get more electoral votes than the President in November to win the White House.

Don't worry, if we don't win in August/November you can come on here and joke all you want, just keep in mind we'll probably have moved on and start working on something else. Until then...

 

I wasn't joking. If, and it's a bloody big if, Paul secures the nomination he's effectively going to help re-elect Obama. Most Republicans will never vote for Paul. They'd sooner have Obama for a second term.

 

because what they really want are for the Clinton/Bush/Obama policies to continue unabated, they just feel like they're "winning" if a republican congress and president passes them

 

No, because they want a rational leader, not some political ineffective who's living in the late 18th Century.

 

2008 Delegate count
McC-1563
H-282
R-272
P-29

2012
WSJ
R-495
S-252
G-131
P-48

NYT
SAME

RCP
R-496
S-236
G-141
P-66

Tea Party Cheer [????]
R-492
S-235
G-157
P-78

RNC
R-416
S-170
G-133
P-26
Unbound-304

Do you really IMAGINE that Paul will get most of the RNC unbound delegates?
He has garnered only 3% of the "bound" delegates. If he got a proportional amount of the unbound delegates he'd get 10 of the 304. But by convention time he'll be so far out of it it is unlikely he will get even ONE of the unbound delegates. That is, IF he hasn't QUIT, which is the most likely scenario. He quit the Republican Party after not becoming a Senator. He QUIT the Libertarian Party after getting laughed out of town as a presidential candidate. And now he has QUIT Congress. People with 200/100 vision could see a pattern here. Ray Charles could see dat!

 

Actually, yes. That is what it is sounding like from stories and numbers coming out of the Precinct and County Conventions.

Thanks for finally posting some more accurate numbers though. At least we finally have a place to work from.

 

This whole "it's the delegates that matter, silly" is exactly what Ron Paul supporters were saying in 2008 too.

And how many unpledged delegates did RP get in 2008? Precisely zero.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R

I mean, stop me if that information is wrong, but why do you think that the same strategy will be any more effective this time around?

And more importantly, don't you think that the American people would be more than just a little bit miffed if the Republicans went and nominated someone who clearly did not get anywhere close to a majority of votes? I mean, I know that's how it works, and I for one would be happy with a Ron Paul presidency, but I don't think the majority of Americans would see it this way. (Or they would be voting for him now.)

 

The numbers come from the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. Wasn't anything heroic to find them.

304 unbound delegates. That DOES NOT mean Paul delegates, it means unbound. Unbound means they are not required to vote for the candidate that WON their Caucasus, which was NOT Paul. Paul has around 40 of these unbound delegates because he WON in their area. The other candidates have about 260 of these unbound delegates because they won them in their areas.
How many won't vote for the candidate that won in their district????? Dam few.
And if a candidate has the 1144 delegates by Convention time, the unbound delegates can pee up a rope. And that is the likelihood. The media talks about a floor fight, because its very possible?? No because they want to keep interest up and sell advertising space.

Paul never HAD a chance, Paul HAS no chance, Paul never WILL have a chance.
Even sending Paulobot Political Terrorists out to disrupt elections will not help.

Reality,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Unfortunately, a majority of American first, don't vote, and a majority of the ones that do vote, don't vote in the Primaries, and don't really understand the primary system.

I've been traveling the country for quite some time now promoting Ron Paul:

http://freeindependentsun.com/repub...omerville-cambridge-blookline-newton-roxbury/

I can honestly say that Ron Paul has the support of the people. The problem is, they rarely show up to Primaries. And, a lot of them don't realize you can register Republican for a Primary, or think once you do you are a "Republican."

I don't think the American people would be upset, I think a lot would say, "Good." And most that would probably didn't vote in the Primary.

People are very distracted in general. There is so much going on. Voting takes a back seat. I was talking to a guy last night at the bar who had never voted in his life but was interested in Ron Paul. Will he vote in the Primary? Probably not. Would he vote if Ron Paul became the nominee? Maybe. Would he care about who got what percent of GOP voters, etc.? No.

 

because folks like you love to be lied to, and told everything is going to be OK.

 

oh, I see, you want more of the same. Don't worry, you'll get it.
Then you can all continue to blame the other party while our path never changes.

 

I like Ron Paul, but some of his foreign policy is a bit backwards. I'm speaking primarily about his opinions for closing US bases around the world and removing our presence in important regions. Otherwise a lot of everything else he says is spot on. Why people can't recognize this is unbelievable. He really is the only politician who has truly been critical of our government and is asking the hard questions that get hard answers. He isn't telling us what he want to hear. He is telling us what we need to hear. Even if you can't vote for Ron Paul or agree with this platform, you have to agree that we need more politicians like him that would put the interests of the country first instead of the party.

 

Great comment!

As I've met tons of Republicans throughout the country and attended meetings, the most consistent, "I like Ron Paul but..." comment has been about his Foreign Policy.

His Foreign Policy was one of the things that drew me to his campaign though. Initially it was when I heard him speak out against the PATRIOT Act in 2003 that he was put on my radar.

I personally think many of our bases do more harm than good. For instance, Japan is constantly having protests against our troop presence there that are fueled more and more every time one of our troops rapes a civilian.

http://www.japaninc.com/node/2920

I also think it is unneeded. Japan, for instance, would, as a military presence, be able to do the job of "stabilizing" the region against the Chinese and North Koreans, especially if South Korea was given the same responsibility.

Additionally, Germany, and the E.U. would be able to stabilize that region against the Russians. Israel is also more than capable of keeping a balance of power in the Middle East (we only restrain them at this point - not that I want them nuking Iran...)

If anything, I think we'd be just as safe, as would the rest of the world, if we pulled troops and shut down bases just in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East.

We can access the rest from there on, but I think we'd find a lot more bases that just don't need to be there.

Aside from that, I think that Ron Paul's platform is very important, and so is his presence in the Primary. Having the strongest showing at the convention can only do good as well, whether or not we pull off our "it's all about the delegates" strategy.

Thanks again for being a reasonable critic!

 

The RCP analysis (Sean Trende) of the possibility of a brokered convention...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...lly_might_not_have_the_delegates_by_june.html

And why a brokered convention benefits Ron Paul...

http://theviewfromabroad.wordpress.com/

 

i can assure you that the gop won't allow ron paulogists to hijack their convention

future delegate estimation from the source you posted:

romney - 704

santorum - 389

gingrich -132

paul - 101

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/09/romney_really_might_not_have_the_delegates_by_june.html

current delegate count:

romney - 516

santorum - 236

gingrich - 141

paul - 66

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

 

Any talk about Ron Paul is a distraction.

The people don't want Ron Paul.

 

his supporters don't seem to care about that

 

Why does it always seem like Ron Paul supporters say things like "I don't know how he hasn't won elections, all the Ron Paul supporters I talk to support him!"

Election fraud!

 

From what? Business as usual?

 

over the last few months, i've been asking store clerks and various other people i meet if they know who ron paul is, very few have ever even heard of him

 

The RCP article was to describe the potential of a brokered convention. The delegate count is, as usual, a projection based on straw polls. The actual delegate count is, as yet, unknown.

The other article I posted, however, listed the ways Paul has already changed the GOP... and will likely do more before the election is over.

Your visceral dislike of Ron Paul only makes Obama stronger. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum can't defeat him.

 

yea, this point has been belabored enough

not in a positive way, dr no you know

i don't dislike ron paul, i dislike lies

 

And do they know the other candidates as well?

 

Yet you propagate them.

You have yet to prove, or even establish within a reasonable doubt that Ron Paul has lied.